Tare v Rono & 2 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to excuse a year-long delay in filing an appeal because the applicant's explanation for missing the deadline did not hold up.
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 has given a plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal and record of appeal
- 2.Whether extension of time should be granted under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Whether reliance on the prevailing state of succession jurisprudence requiring leave to appeal was a plausible explanation for delay
No - Rule 77(4) expressly dispensed with the need for leave before lodging a notice of appeal, so the explanation failed
The Applicant argued she first had to seek leave because the matter was a succession cause, applying promptly for leave which was declined only in February 2026. The single judge held that Rule 77(4) expressly provides that leave need not be obtained before lodging the notice of appeal, so the pursuit of leave could not justify the delay in filing the notice of appeal due by 31st July 2025.
Whether the delay was inordinate and should be excused under Rule 4
The application was dismissed because the explanation was neither plausible nor satisfactory
Applying the settled Mutiso principles, the judge found the explanation wanting. Since the burden lies on the applicant to give a plausible and satisfactory explanation and none was tendered, the length of the delay and other factors did not need to be weighed further, and the application failed with costs to the Respondents.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time under Rule 4 is discretionary, to be exercised judiciously, considering length and reason for delay, arguability of the appeal and prejudice to the respondent
- A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay matters more than its length
- Under Rule 77(4) it is not necessary to obtain leave before lodging a notice of appeal even where the appeal lies only with leave
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 29th July, 2026 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kericho
- Succession Cause No. E014 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve the notice of appeal and record of appeal
The explanation for the delay was neither plausible nor satisfactory because leave to appeal was never required under Rule 77(4)
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents
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.
The jurisdiction is a discretionary one and its scope is unfettered save that it must be exercised judiciously and not whimsically to meet the ends of justice.
The onus is on the applicant to give a plausible explanation for the delay and so long as a plausible and satisfactory explanation is tendered it won’t matter the length of the delay.
In the end, I find that the application dated 29th July, 2026 is not merited and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tare v Rono & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E125 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1797/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.