Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealAllowedCivil Application E112 of 2026· [2026] KECA 1796 (KLR)

Kipyegon & another v Kirui & 2 others

Court of Appeal
25 September 2026
MKMurungi B. Kairaria
1,882 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal gave a family extra time to appeal a succession ruling because their former lawyers never told them the judgment had been delivered.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru (Murungi B. Kairaria, JA) on a Notice of Motion dated 16th July 2026 brought under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022, seeking extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the judgment of Sergon J in Kericho High Court Succession Cause No. 371 of 2015, delivered on 12th March 2026. In that judgment, Sergon J allowed two protests to the confirmation of grant, held that the administrators' proposed distribution was unfair and inequitable, and ordered distribution as proposed by the 2nd Protestor, with each party bearing its own costs. The applicants, who were petitioners/administrators in the succession cause, explained that their former advocates, Mitei Kirui & Co. Advocates, never informed them of the judgment; they only learned of it on 1st July 2026 from the 2nd Respondent, and filed the application under certificate of urgency. The respondents opposed, contending the 112-day delay was inordinate and unexplained, and that the applicants' co-administrators knew of the judgment. The court found the explanation plausible and satisfactory: the record showed no appearance by the applicants' advocates at the judgment delivery; the applicants formally complained to their former advocates without response; the advocates' letter of 15th July 2026 did not state the judgment date and sat on a letter from the Protestor's advocate dated 19th May 2026; and the 2nd Respondent did not controvert the applicants' assertion of when they learned of the judgment. The application was allowed: notice of appeal within 14 days, record of appeal within 30 days thereafter, and costs of the application to abide the intended appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the delay of approximately 112 days in filing the notice of appeal was satisfactorily explained

Holding

The delay was satisfactorily explained: the applicants' former advocates failed to inform them of the judgment, and the applicants acted promptly once aware.

Reasoning

The court found evidence that former advocates did not attend the judgment delivery, that the applicants formally complained to them without response, and that the advocates sat on a letter dated 19th May 2026 informing them of the judgment until 15th July 2026. The 2nd Respondent did not controvert the assertion that he informed the applicants on 1st July 2026, and the application was filed with promptitude under certificate of urgency.

02

Nature of the jurisdiction to extend time

Holding

The jurisdiction is discretionary and unfettered; extension is an equitable remedy, not a right, conditional on a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Reasoning

Both parties agreed on the applicable principles. The court restated that the discretion is unfettered but equitable in character, and that indulgence is unlocked only by a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is a discretionary, equitable remedy requiring a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Applicants to file and serve their notice of appeal within 14 days following delivery of the ruling
  2. 2.Applicants to file and serve the record of appeal within 30 days after lodging the notice of appeal
  3. 3.Costs of the application to abide the intended appeal
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Kericho
Succession Cause No. 371 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 (extension of time)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kipyegon & another v Kirui & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E112 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1796/eng@2026-09-25

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.