Njuki v Ngunjiri & 3 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal threw out an appeal attempt filed months late, confirming that challenges to a single judge's decision must be made within seven days.
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 letter dated 16th July 2025 constituted a valid reference under rule 57(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, given that it was lodged far outside the seven-day period
- 2.Whether an application dated 16th July 2025 could properly be brought as a reference under rule 57
- 3.Whether the single judge erred in dismissing the application for extension of time to file the memorandum and record of appeal
Key legal issues
#Timeliness of a reference under rule 57(1)(b)
The reference letter filed about eight months after the single judge's ruling was out of time and invalid, no explanation for the delay having been offered beyond a vague reference to new advocates being instructed.
Rule 57(1)(b) requires a dissatisfied party to apply informally to the judge at the time of the decision or by writing to the Registrar within seven days. The ruling was delivered on 28th November 2024, so the letter should have been sent by about 5th December 2024. The letter of 16th July 2025 was almost eight months late and no adequate explanation was given, so it could not constitute a valid reference.
Mode of bringing a reference under rule 57
A reference under rule 57 may not be brought by way of a formal application; the application dated 16th July 2025 was therefore incompetent and was struck out.
The court examined rule 57, which contemplates an informal application to the judge or a letter to the Registrar within seven days, and contains no provision for a reference by way of a formal application. Since the applicant purported to bring the reference by an application, a mode unknown to the rule, the application was incompetent and had to be struck out.
Legal principles established
#- A reference from a single judge's decision in a civil matter must be made informally to the judge or by writing to the Registrar within seven days of the decision; a letter lodged outside that period without explanation is not a valid reference.
- Rule 57 does not permit a reference to the full Court to be brought by way of a formal application; such an application is incompetent.
Court orders
#- 1.The letter of 16th July 2025 purporting to be a reference under rule 57 is dismissed as it does not constitute a valid reference under the rule
- 2.The application dated 16th July 2025 purporting to be a reference under rule 57 is struck out as incompetent
- 3.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (single judge, G. V. Odunga, JA)
- Civil Application No. E106 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 57(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (reference from decision of a single judge)
Relief refused
#Reference to the full Court from the ruling of Odunga, JA dismissing extension of time
The reference letter was lodged about eight months after the ruling, far outside the seven-day period in rule 57(1)(b), with no explanation for the delay
Reference by way of formal application dated 16th July 2025
Rule 57 makes no provision for a reference by way of an application; the mode is informal letter or application to the judge within seven days
Costs
No order as to costs - 'We make no order as to costs.'
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 the circumstances, the letter of 16th July 2025, purporting to be a reference under rule 57, does not constitute a valid reference under the said rule, and it is hereby dismissed.
Accordingly, we find that the application dated 16th July 2025 is incompetent, and it is hereby struck out.
We make no order as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njuki v Ngunjiri & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E106 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1704/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.