Raphael & another v West Kenya Sugar Company Limited & another
The bottom line
#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 applicants should be granted extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal out of time
- 2.Whether the delay of 55 days in filing the notice of appeal was inordinate and satisfactorily explained
- 3.Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension is granted
Key legal issues
#Whether sufficient cause was shown for the delay in filing the notice of appeal
The delay of 55 days was not inordinate; the explanation that judgment was delivered without notice and in the absence of the parties was undisputed and sufficient.
The court applied the Salat principles and the Mutiso discretion framework. Time ran from delivery of the High Court judgment on 28th January 2026 and lapsed in February 2026. The applicants discovered the judgment only on 26th March 2026 and filed the notice one week later. The respondents, being unopposed, did not dispute the explanation or demonstrate prejudice.
Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the extension were granted
The respondents did not demonstrate any prejudice that they would suffer if the extension was granted.
Under the Salat principles, absence of prejudice to the respondent supports the exercise of discretion. The respondents filed no response or submissions despite directions, so the application proceeded unopposed under Rule 58(2), and no prejudice was shown on the record.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party at the court's discretion, and the applicant bears the burden of laying a basis for it.
- There is no fixed minimum or maximum period of delay; any delay must be satisfactorily explained.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to file and serve the Notice of Appeal dated 7th April 2026 out of time against the judgment delivered on 28th January 2026 in Civil Appeal No. E169 of 2023
- 2.Applicants to file and serve the Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days of delivery of the ruling
- 3.No orders as to the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- High Court at Kakamega
- Civil Appeal No. E169 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (extension of time)
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 applicants are accordingly granted leave to file and serve the Notice of Appeal dated 7th April 2026 out of time against the judgment delivered on 28th January 2026 by the High Court at Kakamega (S. Mbungi J.) in Civil Appeal No. E169 of 2023.
The applicants shall file and serve the said Notice of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of delivery of this ruling.
A plausible and satisfactory explanation for delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour.
There shall be no orders as regards the costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#Conflicting dates for lapse of time for filing the notice of appeal
Conflicting computation of the length of delay
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Raphael & another v West Kenya Sugar Company Limited & another", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E010 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2086/eng@2026-07-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.