Imran v Eedi Kenya Limited (Civil Application E005 of 2026) [2026] KECA 208 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal because waiting for typed court proceedings is not a valid excuse for delay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to lodge an appeal out of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant gave an excusable reason for the delay in lodging the notice of appeal and whether extension of time should be granted
The application was dismissed. The reason given - unavailability of typed proceedings and judgment - was inexcusable because a notice of appeal does not depend on those documents; the fifteen-month delay was inordinate; the decretal sum had been settled; and the intended appeal was unlikely to succeed given the applicant's acceptance of that settlement.
The Court applied the settled Rule 4 criteria: length of and reason for delay, arguability of the intended appeal, and prejudice to the respondent. It accepted the respondent's point that filing a notice of appeal is not dependent on typed proceedings. The applicant could not explain why she waited over a year to make the application. Settlement of the decretal sum weighed against her, since accepting settlement undermined the arguability and utility of the intended appeal. Discretion was accordingly declined with costs to the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- In an application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the Court exercises judicial discretion and considers the period of delay, the reason for the delay, the chances of success of the intended appeal and prejudice to the respondent.
- An intended appellant does not need certified or typed copies of the proceedings and judgment before filing a notice of appeal, so their unavailability is not an excusable reason for delay in filing the notice of appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for extension of time to appeal out of time is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court, Kisii
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (extension of time to appeal out of time)
Relief refused
#Extension of time to appeal out of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
The reason for the delay was inexcusable, the delay of fifteen months was inordinate, the decretal sum had already been settled, and the intended appeal may not likely succeed
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This Court’s jurisdiction when considering any application under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is an exercise of judicial discretion. In the exercise of this discretion, the Court is required to consider, inter alia, the following: the period of delay, the reason for the delay, whether the intended appeal will be successful and if the respondent will sufier prejudice if the application is granted.
There is no requirement or need for certified copies of the proceedings and Judgment to be supplied to an intended appellant before notice of appeal can be filed.
In the premises therefore, this Court declines to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant. The application lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent is named in the judgment only through its Human Resource Manager who swore the replying affidavit; the corporate name of the respondent is never stated, nor are the case numbers of the ELRC decision or this application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Imran v Eedi Kenya Limited (Civil Application E005 of 2026) [2026] KECA 208 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/208/eng@2026-02-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.