Ongeta v Abudo (Civil Application E320 of 2025) [2026] KECA 470 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a litigant 48 days late in filing an appeal more time, because changing lawyers was 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 applicant has met the threshold for the grant of extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay of approximately 48 days in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate and satisfactorily explained
The delay of 48 days was not inordinate given the explanation based on the change of advocates and the time taken to obtain the file from the former advocates.
The court acknowledged that a notice of appeal can be lodged without the physical file, but held that the practical realities of transition between advocates, including familiarisation with the matter, could not be ignored. Weighing the explanation, the absence of demonstrable prejudice to the respondent, and the totality of circumstances, the delay of 48 days was not characterised as inordinate and discretion under Rule 4 was exercised in the applicant's favour.
Whether failure to annex a draft memorandum of appeal defeats an extension of time application
Failure to annex a draft memorandum of appeal is not necessarily fatal to the application.
The respondent argued the intended appeal was not demonstrably arguable absent a draft memorandum. The court held that annexing a draft memorandum is good practice but not an absolute requirement, and that a single judge under Rule 4 must not determine the merits of the intended appeal with finality, so nothing definitive could be said on prospects at that stage.
Legal principles established
#- The discretion under Rule 4 to extend time, though wide and unfettered, must be exercised judicially and on sound legal principles, considering the length of delay, reason for delay, chances of success and prejudice to the respondent.
- A single judge exercising jurisdiction under Rule 4 does not determine the merits of the intended appeal.
- Failure to annex a draft memorandum of appeal is not necessarily fatal to an application for extension of time, though it is good practice.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 15th May 2025 is allowed
- 2.The applicant shall file 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
- 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 15th May 2025 is allowed. The applicant shall file the appeal within fourteen (14) days from the date of this ruling.
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules vests this Court with wide and unfettered discretion to extend time limited by the Rules or by any decision of the Court.
In the circumstances of this case, and considering the explanation given regarding the change of advocates, I am not persuaded that the delay of 48 days can properly be described as inordinate.
It is also trite that a single judge exercising jurisdiction under Rule 4 does not determine the merits of the intended appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#The respondent's replying affidavit is stated to have been sworn on 9th January 2026, yet the application was filed on 15th May 2025 and the ruling delivered on 6th March 2026; the date, while possible, is unusually late in the timeline and cannot be verified from the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ongeta v Abudo (Civil Application E320 of 2025) [2026] KECA 470 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 15th May 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/470/eng@2026-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.