Alex Kipngeno A Koech & Another v Priscillar Chepkemoi Mutai
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to extend time for an appeal filed five months late, ruling that blaming a former advocate without proof is not a valid excuse.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of a single judge over stay of execution
The single judge lacks jurisdiction; stay of execution is a Rule 5(2)(b) matter reserved for a full bench.
The omnibus application included a stay prayer. Rule 4 empowers a single judge only to extend time for doing acts required by the Rules. Stay of execution falls under Rule 5(2)(b), which only a full bench may determine, so the prayer was not properly before the single judge.
Leave for new advocates to come on record
Leave was unnecessary since the new firm had not previously acted for the applicants in the Court of Appeal.
The applicants' former advocates acted only in the High Court. Following the alleged breakdown of the client-advocate relationship, the applicants could freely appoint new advocates to pursue an appeal post-judgment without seeking the court's leave.
Extension of time under Rule 4
Extension refused; the delay of close to five months was inordinate and unsatisfactorily explained.
The applicants attributed the delay to a communication breakdown with their former advocates over fees. The respondent swore the first applicant and the former advocate were present when judgment was delivered, an averment the applicants did not deny. Blaming the former advocate without justifiable cause showed lack of diligence and candour, disentitling them from the discretionary relief.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge has no jurisdiction to grant stay of execution under Rule 5(2)(b); that power rests with a full bench of the Court.
- Where the client-advocate relationship has broken down post-judgment, a party may appoint new advocates to institute an appeal without leave of the court.
- An inordinate, unexplained delay disentitles an applicant from the exercise of discretion to extend time under Rule 4.
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer (d) for stay of execution struck out as not properly before the single judge
- 2.Prayer (b) for leave for new advocates to come on record found unnecessary
- 3.Application dated 13th July 2026 dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Kericho HCCA/E014 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (single judge, in chambers)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alex Kipngeno A Koech & Another v Priscillar Chepkemoi Mutai", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E108 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1769/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.