Naran v Lakhman (Civil Application E092 of 2026) [2026] KECA 1848 (KLR) (25 September 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1848 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT ELDORET CIVIL APPLICATION E092 OF 2026 PM GACHOKA, JA SEPTEMBER 25, 2026 BETWEEN MANILAL RAVJI NARAN ..................................................................... APPLICANT AND YASMIN SHAMIRA LAKHMAN ...................................................... RESPONDENT (An application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision made in High Court of Kenya at Eldoret (R. Nyakundi, J.) delivered on 1st March, 2026 in Succession Cause No. E020 of 2020) RULING 1. The Notice of Motion before me for my determination is dated 13th July 2026. It is stated to be governed by sections 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act Rule 41 and 49 of the Court of Appeal Rules 2022 seeking the following reliefs: a. ... Spent; b. The applicant be granted leave to appeal against the decision made in Eldoret high Court Succession Cause No. E020 of 2020 on 1/3/2026 outside the prescribed timelines. c. The Notice of Appeal be deemed as properly led upon extension time. d. costs of the applicant be costs in the intended appeal. 2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of it and supported by the averments of the applicant in the supporting adavit to the application. 3. According to the applicant, this Court should grant the application for the reason that the ruling was delivered without notice to his advocate and he learned of the ruling on 5th May 2026 upon receiving a call from the bank. He urged that he was unwell and undergoing treatment at the time he received https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1848/eng@2026-09-25 1
page 1 of 2
the information annexing and marking as MRN 2, 3 and 4 evidence of the same. Further, that at the time he was informed, the time within which he could le a notice of appeal and pursue an appeal had lapsed. 4. The application was opposed. The respondent swore a replying adavit dated 8th September 2026 urging that the applicant was represented by counsel and had the benet of continuous representation. She stated that there was no explanation for the delay in ling the appeal and urged the court to dismiss the appeal with costs. 5. The applicant led a supplementary adavit dated 14th September 2026, reiterating that there was no notice issued by the High Court on the delivery and further, that together with his advocate, he was unaware of the ruling as he was unwell as a consequence of an enlarged prostate. He urged that no prejudice would be suered by the respondent and prayed that the application be allowed. 6. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The applicant led submissions dated 14th September 2026. He prayed that the application be allowed. 7. Under Rule 4 of this Court’s Rules, the Court may extend time for the doing of an act authorized under the Rules. The constituent elements for succeeding in an application of this nature have been well settled in our jurisdiction. This Court in Fakir Mohamed vs Joseph Mugambi & 2 others [2005] KECA 340 (KLR) summarized the principles as follows: “ The exercise of this Court’s discretion under Rule 4 has followed a well-beaten path since the stricture of “sucient reason” was removed by amendment in 1985. As it is unfettered, there is no limit to the number of factors the Court would consider so long as they are relevant. The period of delay, the reason for the delay, (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted, the eect of the delay on public administration, the importance of compliance with time limits, the resources of the parties, whether the matter raises issues of public importance – are all relevant but not exhaustive factors: see Mutiso vs Mwangi, Civil Application No. Nai. 255 of 1997 (ur), Mwangi vs Kenya Airways Ltd [2003] KLR 486”. 8. I have considered the Notice of Motion, the adavit and the annexures thereto as well as the law. The decision was delivered on 1st March 2026. The applicant explained that he learned of the ruling on or about 5th May 2026, and he led the present application on 13th July 2026 which was a delay of four months, which period is not inordinate and has been suciently explained. I nd that the applicant deserves the exercise of discretion in his favor. The notice of appeal is hereby deemed as duly led. I direct the applicant to le his memorandum of appeal and record of appeal within the next 30 days from the date of this order. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal. DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. M. GACHOKA C.Arb, FCIArb. ........................................... JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1848/eng@2026-09-25 2
page 2 of 2