Gitau v Veew Distributors Limited (Miscellaneous Application E324 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 832 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan employment court refused to extend time to appeal because the applicant's excuse for the 12-day delay did not hold up against court records.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether time can be extended for the Applicant to file an Appeal
- 2.Whether the delay of 12 days was inordinate
- 3.Whether the Applicant established a reasonable reason for the delay
Key legal issues
#Whether the delay in filing the intended appeal was inordinate
The 12-day delay (42 days from judgment) was reasonable and not inordinate
Judgment was delivered on 27th September 2024 and the prescribed period lapsed on 27th October 2024. The Motion was filed on 8th November 2024. Applying Section 79G and Section 95 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court exercised its discretion and found the short delay reasonable, moving to the question of the reason for the delay.
Whether the Applicant gave a reasonable explanation for the delay
No - the explanation (late receipt of the judgment and decree) was discredited because the judgment was on the Case Tracking System portal from 27th September 2024 and a certified copy was not needed to lodge a Memorandum of Appeal
The judgment annexed was an uncertified download from the Case Tracking System portal, which discounted the claim that the judgment was received on 30th October 2024. The Applicant only needed a copy of the judgment to lodge the Memorandum of Appeal, not a certified copy, so the asserted reason for the delay was not accurate or credible.
Whether the discretion to extend time should be exercised
The discretion was refused because extension of time is equitable and the Applicant failed to satisfy the court of good and sufficient cause
Relying on the Salat principles from the Supreme Court, the court held that a party seeking extension bears the burden of laying a basis to the court's satisfaction and that the delay must be explained. Since the Applicant's reasons were unsatisfactory, the court declined to enlarge time.
Legal principles established
#- Extension of time is an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who must lay a basis to the satisfaction of the Court
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated November 8, 2024 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (Hon. Rawlings Liluma Musiega)
- MCELRC/E833 of 2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 79G and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act; Rule 80 of the Employment and Labour Relations Court (Procedure) Rules, 2024
Relief refused
#Leave to appeal/file appeal out of time
The Applicant failed to give genuine and credible reasons for the delay; the judgment was available on the Case Tracking System portal on the day of delivery, so the claimed reason for delay was unsatisfactory
Costs
Dismissed with no orders as to costs (each party to bear own costs).
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.
Ultimately, the Court finds that the Application dated November 8, 2024 is devoid of merit and it is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that the reasons advanced by the Applicant for the delay as being unsatisfactory and not persuasive to make this Court invoke its discretion by enlarging time so that the Applicant can pursue his right of appeal.
a party invoking the Court’s discretion ought to place before the court genuine and credible reasons supported by evidence to explain the delay.
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
#The judgment refers to a 'Notice of Appeal' when the applicable procedure for appeals from subordinate courts under Section 79G is by Memorandum of Appeal; the court itself marks this with (sic).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gitau v Veew Distributors Limited (Miscellaneous Application E324 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 832 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 8th November, 2024 in MCELRC/E833 of 2020 (intended appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/832/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.