Panner Seed (K) Ltd v Gorgar Farm Ltd (Civil Application E005 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1081 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to revive a lapsed appeal because the applicant never obtained a certificate of delay, making the delay unexcused.
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 leave to file a memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the record of appeal should be deemed properly filed
- 3.Whether the applicant provided a plausible and sufficient explanation for the delay
- 4.Whether the absence of a certificate of delay is fatal to the application
Key legal issues
#Effect of failure to obtain a certificate of delay
Absence of a certificate of delay is fatal to an application for extension of time where delay is attributed to the registry; the notice of appeal dies a natural death after 60 days
Rule 85(1) imposes a strict 60-day window to institute the appeal, while Rule 85(2) excludes only the time needed to prepare and certify proceedings, provided the appellant applied for them in writing and obtained a certificate of delay. Without that certificate the clock never pauses, time spent waiting for the registry is the applicant's unexcused delay, and the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn by operation of law.
Plausibility of the explanation for delay
The applicant's explanation was not plausible; even accepting registry delay, no certificate of delay was obtained
Applying the Salat principles, the court found the applicant's explanation for the delay inadequate: proceedings were ready for collection in October 2025 and were forwarded by the respondent's counsel, and although the applicant alleged clerical errors in the typed proceedings, it neither obtained a certificate of delay nor explained the entire period of delay. The explanation was therefore vague and could not trigger the discretion.
Legal principles established
#- An appellant who seeks to exclude registry delay from the 60-day period under Rule 85 must obtain a certificate of delay; without it, the notice of appeal lapses on day 61 and the delay is treated as the appellant's own
- Extension of time is an equitable discretion; a plausible explanation covering the entire period is the key that unlocks consideration of other factors such as prospects of success
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the application dated 19th December 2025
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- Nakuru High Court Civil Case No. 5 of 2017
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Leave to file memorandum of appeal and record of appeal out of time
The applicant failed to obtain a certificate of delay and the explanation for the delay was not plausible
Order that the record of appeal be deemed properly filed
Follows from dismissal of the extension of time application
Costs
Application 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.
By now it is manifestly clear that absence of the certificate of delay is fatal to the application before me. On this ground alone, this application collapses.
Accordingly, I dismiss the application dated 19th December 2025 with costs to the respondent.
A plausible, reasonable, and comprehensive explanation for the delay is a crucial, though not sole, factor that triggers the Court's discretion to grant extension of time to file an appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph 2 states the applicant filed submissions dated 9th February 2026, but the narrative begins 'The applicant filed submissions... In support of the application' while paragraph 5's text also refers to the applicant; paragraph 6 however says 'In opposition to the application, the respondent filed submissions dated 6th February 2026' yet describes them as citing Salat, Diplack and Alex Njue Kithangari, which are cited in the paragraph as the respondent's authorities - consistent. The clearer internal contradiction is in paragraph 5, which mixes applicant and respondent positions.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Panner Seed (K) Ltd v Gorgar Farm Ltd (Civil Application E005 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1081 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 19th December 2025 (arising from Nakuru High Court Civil Case No. 5 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1081/eng@2026-06-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.