Tare v Rono & 2 others (Civil Application E125 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1797 (KLR) (25 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1797 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU CIVIL APPLICATION E125 OF 2026 MB KAIRARIA, JA SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 BETWEEN JANE CHEPKOECH TARE .................................................................... APPLICANT AND GRACE RONO ............................................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT MARY RONO ................................................................................ 2ND RESPONDENT ZEDDY LANGAT .......................................................................... 3RD RESPONDENT (An application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal and record of appeal from the judgement of the High Court of Kenya at Kericho (J. K. Sergon J.) delivered on 17th July 2025 in Succession Cause No. E014 of 2023) RULING 1. The Notice of motion application dated 29th July, 2026 seeks enlargement of time within which to lodge and serve the notice of appeal and record of appeal in an intended appeal against the judgement delivered on 17th July, 2025 by J. K Sergon J in Kericho High Court Succession Cause No. E014 of 2023 in which the learned judge dismissed the Applicant’s protest/objection to the conrmation of the grant in respect of estate of the late Esther Chelangat Kigen and conrmed the grant issued in name of the Respondent. 2. Dissatised with that decision the Applicant desires to challenge it before the Court of Appeal but nds its path impended by statutory procedural barriers in that she did not le and serve the notice of appeal and the record of appeal within the time prescribed by Rule 77 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules. She thus been constrained to extension of time to remedy the default. 3. Undoubtedly, there is jurisdiction conferred by Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules to extend the time limit for doing any act authorized by the rules, the Court or the superior court on such terms as may be https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1797/eng@2026-09-25 1
page 1 of 3
just. The principles and considerations that guide a single judge when determining an application of this nature are well settled. The jurisdiction is a discretionary one and its scope is unfettered save that it must be exercised judiciously and not whimsically to meet the ends of justice. The Court considers among other things the length of the delay, the reason for delay, possibly the probability of the intended appeal succeeding and whether any prejudice will be occasioned upon the respondent in the event the application is acceded to. [See Leo Sila Mutiso vs. Rose Hellen Wangari.[1999] 2 EA 231. The onus is on the applicant to give a plausible explanation for the delay and so long as a plausible and satisfactory explanation is tendered it won’t matter the length of the delay. 4. The application is opposed by the Respondents who essentially argue that the delay is inordinate and the explanation proered by the applicant is neither plausible nor satisfactory or reasonable. 5. As the judgement sought to be appealed was delivered on 17th July, 2025, the Applicant ought to have led the Notice of Appeal within 14 days after delivery of the judgement, which I reckon would have been on or before 31st July, 2025. The Applicant did not do so within those 14 days or at all. The question is whether the explanation given for the failure to le the Notice of Appeal within the 14 days prescribed by Rule 77[2] of the Court of Appeal Rules is plausible and satisfactory? 6. In that regard, the Applicant says that the delay was caused by the state of the prevailing jurisprudence. That has the matter was one under the law of succession the Applicant required leave of court to appeal. That she promptly applied for leave to appeal before the High Court by an application dated 20th August, 2025, which was declined in a ruling delivered on 19th February, 2026. She then led Civil Application No. E035 of 2026 simultaneously seeking leave to appeal and stay of execution of the judgement which application was referred back for xing before a full bench because the prayers sought could not be determined by a single judge of this Court. That application is yet to be xed for hearing. 7. In the intervening period, the Supreme Court claried the law and held that no leave was required to appeal a judgement of the High Court in a succession cause. The Applicant then brought the current application seeking extension of time to lodge the Notice of Appeal explaining that she needed leave to do so in the past because of the prevailing state of the law. But I do not consider that explanation plausible or satisfactory in view of the express provisions of Rule 77(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules which expressly provides that it shall not be necessary to obtain leave to appeal before lodging the notice of appeal as contemplated by Rule 77(2). Rule 77 (4) reads: “ When an appeal lies only with leave or certication that a point of law of general public importance is involved, it shall not be necessary to obtain leave or certicate before lodging the notice of appeal.’’ 8. It is thus plain that the Applicant did not have to seek and obtain leave of either the superior court or this Court before lodging the notice of appeal. It follows that the explanation given by the Applicant for the delay in lodging its notice of appeal against the decision made on 17th July 2025 is in my considered view neither plausible nor satisfactory. 9. In the end, I nd that the application dated 29th July, 2026 is not merited and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. MURUNGI B. KAIRARIA ........................ JUDGE OF APPEAL https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1797/eng@2026-09-25 2
page 2 of 3
I certify that this is a True copy of the original Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1797/eng@2026-09-25 3
page 3 of 3