Nairobi City County v Kariobangi Sewerage Farmers Self-Help Group & 2 others (Civil Application E363 of 2025) [2026] KECA 444 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave Nairobi City County more time to appeal, ruling a nine-month delay was excusable because the county was never told of the judgment.
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 has satisfied the threshold for the exercise of the Court's discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 to extend time to file and serve the notice of appeal and record of appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether a delay of approximately nine months in lodging a notice of appeal is inordinate where the applicant was unaware of the judgment and there was delay in retrieving the file from former advocates
The delay was not inordinate given the explanation offered and the unopposed nature of the application; time was extended.
Judgment was delivered on 20th June 2024 and the application filed 13th March 2025, a delay of about nine months. The court accepted that the applicant was not informed by its former advocates of the judgment and only learned of it two months later upon inquiry, and that retrieving the file further delayed the new counsel. Whether delay is inordinate depends on the circumstances of each case; a satisfactory explanation grounded in practical realities may justify it. Litigants should not be unduly penalised for counsel's mistakes.
Whether a single judge under Rule 4 may assess the merits of the intended appeal
No; a single judge does not determine with finality whether the intended appeal has merit.
Citing Athuman Nusura Juma v Afwa Mohamed Ramadhan, the court held that whether the intended appeal has merit is not an issue to be determined with finality by a single Judge; the applicant's assertion of high prospects of success cannot be definitively evaluated at the Rule 4 stage.
Whether a litigant should be shut out for the mistakes of counsel
In appropriate circumstances a litigant ought not to be unduly penalised for the mistakes of counsel.
Relying on Belinda Murai & 9 Others v Amos Wainaina and Philip Chemwolo & Another v Augustine Kubende, the court reaffirmed that blunders occur and it does not follow that a mistake by a lawyer closes the door of justice or shuts a party out from having its case determined on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge exercising jurisdiction under Rule 4 does not determine the merits of the intended appeal.
- Whether delay is inordinate depends on the circumstances of each case, and a satisfactory explanation may justify even a lengthy delay.
- The Rule 4 discretion, though unfettered, must be exercised judicially on the established principles of length of delay, reason for delay, chances of the appeal succeeding, and prejudice to the respondent.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 13th March 2025 is allowed
- 2.The applicant shall file and serve the appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of the ruling
- 3.The costs of the motion shall be in the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (extension of time, exercised by a single judge)
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.
Accordingly, the application dated 13th March 2025 is allowed.
The applicant shall file and serve the appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling.
The costs of the motion shall be in the intended appeal.
a mistake is a mistake… the door of justice is not closed because a mistake has been made by a lawyer.
extension of time is not a right but an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who has laid a satisfactory basis for the exercise of the Court's discretion
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated '6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026' although the application is dated 13th March 2025 and described as such; the delivery date post-dates the application year by one year and the internal chronology refers to events in December 2024, which is consistent, but the 2026 date may be a typographical error for 2025.
The introductory text describes the ruling as a 'judgment' while it is in substance a ruling on a Rule 4 application; the applicant is described as 'the applicant' though styled as appellant in the intended appeal.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nairobi City County v Kariobangi Sewerage Farmers Self-Help Group & 2 others (Civil Application E363 of 2025) [2026] KECA 444 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 13th March 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/444/eng@2026-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.