Baikenda v M'Mbirithu & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E017 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1450 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal ruled that a single Judge must first decide applications to come on record and extend time before the full bench can consider a Supreme Court appeal.
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 firm of Ekons Law Chambers should come on record for the applicant post judgment
- 2.Whether to grant extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal out of time
- 3.Whether the two single-Judge prayers must precede consideration of the certification and leave prayers
Key legal issues
#Allocation of the application's prayers between a single Judge and the full bench
The prayers for coming on record post judgment and for extension of time must first be heard by a single Judge; only thereafter may the full bench consider the leave and certification prayers.
Rule 55(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules vests jurisdiction over coming on record and extension of time in a single Judge, while rule 57(1)(5) allows a dissatisfied party to refer a single Judge's decision to the full bench. The court therefore sequenced the application: the single Judge first hears prayers (i) and (v), then the full bench addresses certification under Article 163(4)(b) depending on the outcome. The court declined to short-circuit this sequencing despite the application having been pending.
Legal principles established
#- Prayers for a party to come on record post judgment and for extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal fall within the jurisdiction of a single Judge, and the certification/leave prayers can only be dealt with by the full bench after the single Judge has determined them.
Court orders
#- 1.Referral of the application to a single Judge for hearing of prayers (i) and (v) (coming on record and extension of time)
- 2.That after the single Judge's decision, the application be escalated to the full bench for hearing of the prayers for certification to the Supreme Court
- 3.That the registry fix the matter for hearing before a single Judge on a priority basis
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 55(1) and rule 57(1)(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules (single Judge referral procedure); intended appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Immediate determination by the full bench of leave to appeal under Article 163(4)(b) and certification of a matter of great public importance
The court deferred these prayers pending determination by a single Judge of the prayers for coming on record and extension of time, as those fall within a single Judge's jurisdiction
Costs
No costs order made in the ruling.
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.
We therefore find it prudent to refer this application which we hereby do, to a single Judge for hearing of prayers (i) and (v) before it is escalated to the full bench for hearing of the prayers in respect of certification to the Supreme Court.
Considering that the application has been pending for some time, let the registry fix the matter for hearing before a single Judge on priority basis.
These two prayers fall within the jurisdiction of a single Judge pursuant to rule 55(1) of the Rules of this Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to a motion dated 5th February 2026 delivered on 17th July 2026, which post-dates the court's usual timelines; the dates appear unusual and may reflect typographical errors.
The ruling describes the applicant's own notice of motion as seeking an order for Ekons Law Chambers to come on record for the 1st respondent/applicant, while a preliminary objection was filed by counsel for the appellant/applicant - the party designations are internally inconsistent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Baikenda v M'Mbirithu & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E017 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1450 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1450/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.