Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Supreme CourtPartially AllowedApplication E011 of 2026

Speaker, National Assembly v Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) & 6 others

Supreme Court of Kenya
17 July 2026
1,915 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Supreme Court gave the National Assembly Speaker more time to appeal a ruling striking down cybercrime law provisions, but refused to excuse the late filing itself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court of Kenya on an application by the Speaker of the National Assembly for extension and enlargement of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment of 6th March 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2020, which declared sections 22 and 23 of the Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act, No. 5 of 2018 unconstitutional. The application was brought under Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution and Rules 3(2), 3(5), 15(2), 31(6) and 36 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020. The applicant attributed the delay to internal processes of reviewing the judgment and obtaining instructions, and argued that the intended appeal raises weighty questions on the scope of legislative authority, fundamental rights and regulation of the digital space, and that the Court of Appeal decision created a legal vacuum. The 5th, 6th and 7th respondents opposed, contending the delay was unexplained, that they would be prejudiced by defending multiple appeals, and that the applicant could raise its issues in cross-appeals on petitions filed within time. Applying the settled Salat principles, the Court found the ten-day delay not inordinate and reasonably explained, the application brought without undue delay, and no prejudice demonstrated, noting the possibility of consolidating the multiple appeals. The Court allowed the application but, on the authority of Salat, declined to deem the out-of-time Notice of Appeal as properly on record, holding such a filing irregular and of no effect, and instead granted seven days to file a fresh Notice of Appeal. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant has demonstrated a reasonable and excusable cause for the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal
  2. 2.Whether the application for extension and enlargement of time was brought without undue delay
  3. 3.Whether the respondents will suffer prejudice if the extension is granted
  4. 4.Whether the Notice of Appeal filed out of time should be deemed as duly filed, served and properly on record

Key legal issues

#
01

Principles governing extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal in the Supreme Court

Holding

The Salat principles apply: extension is equitable and discretionary, the delay must be explained to the court's satisfaction, and prejudice to respondents and undue delay are relevant considerations.

Reasoning

The Court restated the settled Salat principles and applied them case-by-case. It found the ten-day delay attributable to internal review of the judgment and obtaining instructions was reasonable and excusable, the application was filed without undue delay, and the respondents' claimed prejudice from defending multiple appeals was unconvincing since the issues were well known and the appeals could be consolidated.

p. 4
02

Whether an out-of-time Notice of Appeal may be deemed properly on record

Holding

The Court declined to deem the Notice of Appeal as duly filed, holding that a document filed out of time without leave is irregular and of no effect.

Reasoning

Following Salat and a long line of decisions, the Court distinguished between granting leave to file afresh and validating an irregularly filed document. The applicant was instead given seven days to file and serve a fresh Notice of Appeal.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Extension of time is an equitable discretionary remedy available only to a deserving party, and the applicant bears the burden of explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the court.
  • A document filed out of time and without leave is irregular and of no effect; the court will not deem such a document as properly on record.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 31st March 2026 and filed on 8th April 2026 be and is hereby allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The applicant is granted seven (7) days from the date of this Ruling to file afresh and serve its Notice of Appeal
  3. 3.The costs of the application shall be in the cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

Philomena Mbete Mwilu
P M MwiluDCJ
Currently serving
majority

Wrote the judgment

Smokin Charles Wanjala
S C WanjalaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Isaac Lenaola
I LenaolaSCJ
Currently serving
majority
William Ouko
W OukoSCJ
Currently serving
majority
Mohamed Abdulahi Warsame
M A WarsameSCJ
Currently serving
majority
On appeal from
Court of Appeal of Kenya
Civil Appeal No. 197 of 2020
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution; Rules 3(2), 3(5), 15(2), 31(6) and 36 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020

Relief refused

#

Deeming of the out-of-time Notice of Appeal as duly filed, served and properly on record

A document filed out of time and without leave is irregular and of no effect; the applicant must file a fresh Notice of Appeal within seven days

Costs

The costs of the application shall be in the cause.

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.

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;
p. 3Nature of extension of time
We reiterate that a document filed out of time and without leave is irregular and is of no effect.
Effect of out-of-time filing
The applicant is granted seven (7) days from the date of this Ruling to file afresh and serve its Notice of Appeal;
p. 4Final orders
The costs of the application shall be in the cause.
p. 4Costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Affidavit date appears erroneous, flagged by the Court itself with '(sic)'

minor

Court describes the delay as one to file a 'petition of appeal' though the application concerned a Notice of Appeal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Speaker, National Assembly v Bloggers Association of Kenya (BAKE) & 6 others", Case Analysis (2026). Application E011 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/55/eng@2026-07-17

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.