Bidco Africa Ltd v Wangu & 294 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E278 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1056 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Bidco Africa lost its bid to revive a late appeal because a Covid-19 excuse could not cover six unexplained weeks of delay after lockdown lifted.
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 full Court should interfere with the single Judge's discretionary dismissal of the application for extension of time to file and serve the record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal, attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic, was satisfactorily explained
Key legal issues
#Standard for interference by the full Court with a single Judge's discretionary decision on a reference under Rule 57(1)(b)
The full Court will not interfere with a single Judge's exercise of discretion under Rule 4 unless it is shown that irrelevant matters were considered, relevant matters were ignored, the Judge misapprehended the evidence or law, or the decision was plainly wrong.
The Court adopted the principles in John Koyi Waluke vs. Moses Masika Wetangula, reiterating that a single Judge exercises the Court's unfettered discretion on behalf of the whole Court. The reference is not an appeal, and disagreement with the outcome is insufficient. The applicant showed none of the enumerated errors, so the dismissal of the extension-of-time application stood.
Whether the Covid-19 pandemic excused the delay in filing the record of appeal
The single Judge had properly found the reasons neither excusable nor satisfactory, given the e-filing practice directions issued in April 2020 and the unexplained six-week delay after the lockdown was lifted.
The Court noted that the single Judge duly considered the applicant's explanation, including the affidavit of Georgina Ogalo-Omondi, before concluding the applicant had not demonstrated entitlement to the discretion. The Judge had highlighted the e-filing practice directions and the unexplained delay after the lockdown lifted, and the full Court found no misdirection in that assessment.
Legal principles established
#- A single Judge exercising discretion under Rule 4 acts on behalf of the whole Court, and the full bench may interfere only where irrelevant matters were considered, relevant matters ignored, the evidence or law misapprehended, or the decision was plainly wrong; it is not enough that the full Court would have reached a different result.
Court orders
#- 1.The reference is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the reference awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (decision of single Judge, Kiage, JA)
- Application for extension of time dated 12th October 2020; underlying ELRC Cause No. 1936 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 57(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (reference against decision of a single Judge under Rule 4)
Relief refused
#Reference seeking to overturn the single Judge's dismissal of extension of time to file the record of appeal out of time
The applicant failed to show that the single Judge took into account irrelevant matters, ignored relevant ones, misapprehended the evidence and law, or that his decision was plainly wrong
Costs
The reference fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
In our view, it is not shown that the Judge considered matters he should not have, or that he failed to consider matters that he should have, or that the decision reached is plainly wrong.
The reference fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
It is not enough, for example, to show the full Court that had it been sitting in place of the single Judge, it would have arrived at a difierent result.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the respondents are not stated anywhere in the ruling; only their counsel, Mr. Roy Mwenesi, and the underlying ELRC cause number are identified.
The ruling is dated and delivered on 29th May 2026 but records the reference as urged on 11th November 2025 with respondents' submissions dated 24th June 2025; the applicant's submissions are dated 5th April 2023, indicating a substantial internal gap not explained in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bidco Africa Ltd v Wangu & 294 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E278 of 2020) [2026] KECA 1056 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Reference under Rule 57(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for extension of time dated 12th October 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1056/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.