Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Application No. of 2025 (Notice of Motion dated 30th May 2025)· [2026] KECA 147 (KLR)

The Kenya National Highway Authority v Sbi International Holdings (kenya)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
30 January 2026
1,081 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal let KeNHA appeal late against a Kshs. 201 million judgment because it was never told the judgment date.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 seeking leave to appeal out of time against an ex-parte interlocutory judgment of V. M. Mochache, J. delivered on 21st March 2025 in Civil Suit No. E287 of 2022, by which the applicant was ordered to pay Kshs. 201,323,929.01 plus interest. The applicant, a state corporation, explained that it only became aware of the ruling after the appeal period had lapsed because the matter was determined ex-parte, and that no notice of the delivery date had been served. The respondent opposed, contending the applicant had been served with pleadings, had entered appearance but filed no defence, had already failed in an earlier application before Mabeya, J. to refer the matter to arbitration and to file a defence out of time, and that the underlying dispute involved a 'pay now argue later' framework for completed road works. Applying the well-known Rule 4 considerations drawn from Leo Sila Mutiso v Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi - the length of delay, the reasons for it, the arguability of the intended appeal and prejudice to the respondent - the court held that the delay of about fifty-six days was not overly inordinate and was excusable, that the merits of the intended appeal were not a decisive factor at this stage, and that the respondent had not shown weighty or uncompensable prejudice. The motion was allowed with directions to file the notice of appeal within fourteen days and the record of appeal within forty-five days; costs were reserved to the intended appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time under Rule 4

Holding

A delay of about fifty-six days was not overly inordinate and was excusable where the applicant was not served with notice of the delivery date of the ex-parte judgment.

Reasoning

The court found no evidence of service of the notice informing parties of the delivery date, so the applicant's assertion of unawareness was believable. The delay of about fifty-six days after the notice of appeal fell due was held not overly inordinate given the plausible explanation.

p. 2
02

Weight of the merits of the intended appeal

Holding

Lack of merit of the intended appeal is not a decisive factor on an extension-of-time application in the circumstances of the case.

Reasoning

The court declined to reflect on the merits of the intended appeal, holding that the respondent would have an opportunity to demonstrate lack of merit before the bench that hears the appeal. The considerations of delay, reasons and prejudice carried greater weight.

p. 2
03

Prejudice to the respondent

Holding

Where the respondent has not demonstrated weighty, infirming or uncompensable prejudice, the application should lean towards being allowed.

Reasoning

The court noted that the respondent had not shown it would suffer prejudice that was weighty, infirming or incapable of compensation if leave were granted, and accordingly allowed the motion.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The Rule 4 discretion to extend time is exercised on well-known considerations: length of delay, reasons for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, and degree of prejudice to the respondent.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the applicant to file an appeal out of time
  2. 2.The applicant to file and serve a notice of appeal within fourteen (14) days
  3. 3.The applicant to file and serve the record of appeal within forty-five (45) days of filing and service of the notice of appeal
  4. 4.Costs of the application to be in the intended appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Civil Suit No. E287 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "The Kenya National Highway Authority v Sbi International Holdings (kenya)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. of 2025 (Notice of Motion dated 30th May 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/147/eng@2026-01-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.