Indirajet Vaghela T/A Shiv Bookshop v Raihan Amirali Kassam
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to forgive an 18-month delay in filing an appeal because the applicant gave no real reasons or evidence.
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 demonstrated sufficient cause to warrant extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time
Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the notice of appeal
The application was dismissed because no reasons or evidence for the 18-month delay were provided and no submissions were filed on the prayer.
Applying the Salat principles, the court found the applicant merely asserted the delay was excusable without any basis or evidence, and filed no submissions on the extension prayer. The 18-month delay in filing the application was inordinate, and the applicant failed to discharge the burden of laying a basis to the satisfaction of the court.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the discretion of the court, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the court's satisfaction.
Court orders
#- 1.The prayer for leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time in the application dated 30th March 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
- Bungoma ELC Appeal No. 20 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time
No reasons or evidence for the 18-month delay were given; delay was inordinate
Costs
Costs of the application to the respondent
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.
I am therefore not persuaded that sufficient cause has been demonstrated by the applicant for the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal and the instant application for leave, and the delay of 18 months in filing the instant application was inordinate in the circumstances.
Consequently, I decline to grant the prayer for leave to file a Notice of Appeal out of time. The result is that the said prayer in the application dated 30th March 2026 is dismissed, with costs to the respondent.
Extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the Court
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for the ELC judgment
Application dated 30th March 2026 predates the stated judgment date of 11th October 2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Indirajet Vaghela T/A Shiv Bookshop v Raihan Amirali Kassam", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application No. E025 of 2026 (formerly KSM Civil Application No. E074 of 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2064/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.