Principal Secretary for Internal Security & National Administration & 5 others v Gurey & 2 others (Civil Application E355 of 2025) [2026] KECA 469 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave government lawyers more time to appeal after a five-month delay, accepting internal government consultations as a reasonable explanation.
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 applicants have satisfied the requirements for the exercise of this Court's discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
- 2.Whether the delay complained of is inordinate
Key legal issues
#Whether the ~5-month delay in lodging the notice of appeal was inordinate
The delay, though not insignificant, was not inordinate given the explanation of consultations and approvals within government and absence of demonstrable prejudice.
The applicants, being public institutions, needed to consult and obtain approval from various government bodies before deciding to appeal. The Court accepted that public institutions often operate through structured decision-making processes. Whether delay is inordinate depends on the circumstances of each case, and explanations grounded in practical realities may justify it. Considering the length of delay, the explanation offered and absence of demonstrable prejudice, a sufficient basis for extension was laid.
Whether a single judge under Rule 4 may assess the merits of the intended appeal
A single judge does not determine the merits; it suffices that the intended appeal is not frivolous.
Relying on Athuman Nusura Juma v Afwa Mohamed Ramadhan, the Court held it must be careful not to determine with finality the merits of the intended appeal at the extension-of-time stage. The respondents' challenge to the prospects of the appeal therefore could not defeat the application where the appeal was not shown to be frivolous.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 4 confers wide but judiciously exercisable discretion to extend time.
- A single judge under Rule 4 does not determine the merits of the intended appeal; it is sufficient that the appeal is not frivolous.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 9th June 2025 is allowed
- 2.The applicants shall file and serve the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of this 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
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
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 9th June 2025 is allowed.
The applicants shall file and serve the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling.
extension of time is not a right but an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who has laid a satisfactory basis
the applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the delay is excusable and that the Court's discretion should be exercised in his favour
Issues in the judgment
#Date anomaly: the application is dated 9th June 2025 and the replying affidavit 5th January 2025, i.e. the reply predates the application.
Judgment delivery date (6th March 2026) postdates the application year context inconsistently with the stated timeline.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Principal Secretary for Internal Security & National Administration & 5 others v Gurey & 2 others (Civil Application E355 of 2025) [2026] KECA 469 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 9th June 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/469/eng@2026-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.