Thuo Commercial Agencies v Kenya Airports Authority & 7 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal gave a company extra time to file its appeal record, ruling that a lawyer's honest mistake shouldn't kill a case.
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 single judge should exercise his discretion in favour of the Applicant to enable it to file the record of appeal outside the timelines prescribed by Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the record of appeal was inordinate and satisfactorily explained
The delay was not inordinate; the four-day delay after discovery of the rejected record, coupled with counsel's hospitalisation, was sufficiently explained.
The court recalculated the 60-day period from the corrected date of 17th April 2026, making the intended filing date 16th June 2026. The incomplete record filed 15th June was thus timely. The four-day delay after discovery of the rejection was short, and Mr Audi, whose affidavit was needed, remained in hospital. The applicant's 11-day follow-up interval was also not unreasonably long.
Whether mistake of counsel entitles a party to extension of time
Mistake of counsel is not a talisman, but genuine mistakes are weighed against the wider interest of justice, which leans towards hearing cases on the merits.
The court accepted the 1st Respondent's submission that counsel's mistake is not of itself a ground for extension, but held that courts faced with an honest mistake must weigh its impact against the interests of justice, citing Philip Chemwolo v Augustine Kubende on blunders not depriving a party of a hearing on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- A single judge may extend time under Rule 4 where the delay is not inordinate and is satisfactorily explained; an honest mistake of counsel is weighed against the wider interests of justice rather than automatically barring relief.
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 4th July 2026 is allowed
- 2.The Applicant shall file and serve its record of appeal within 14 days following delivery of the ruling
- 3.The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- ELC Case No. 340 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 (single judge discretionary jurisdiction to extend time)
Relief refused
#2nd Respondent's prayer for leave to file a cross-appeal
Improperly raised, at odds with Rule 95 of the Court of Appeal Rules governing cross-appeals
Costs
The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the intended appeal.
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 delay is not inordinate as contended by the 1st Respondent.
I am persuaded that the applicant has sufficiently and satisfactorily explained the delay.
blunders will continue to be made from time to time and it does not follow that a party should suffer the penalty of having his case heard on the merits.
Accordingly, I allow the Applicants Notice of Motion application dated 4th July, 2026 and direct that the applicant shall file and serve its record of appeal within 14 days, following the delivery of this ruling.
Issues in the judgment
#Judge name rendered inconsistently between coram and signature block
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Thuo Commercial Agencies v Kenya Airports Authority & 7 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E105 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1898/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.