Cherutich (Suing as Legal Representative of the Estate of Cherutich Yego) v Board of Management Hossem Secondary School

3. The applicant urges this court to grant the application for the reason that the delay in ling the appeal due to a delay of the preparation and issuance of certied copies of the proceedings and decree. Further, that she led a notice of appeal and requested for certied copies of the proceedings and decree on 14th April 2026; that she made numerous follow ups to enquire whether they were ready for collection, annexing and marking as GCC-3a and 3b copies of letters in this regard. She urged that her advocate obtained the decree and proceedings on 14th July 2026 and was issued with a certicate of delay and a decree on 15th July 2026, annexing and marking copies of the same as GCC-4a, 4b and 4c. She urged that this delay was not occasioned by the applicant or her advocate. Further, that she stood to suer irreparable loss unless the orders sought were granted. 4. The respondent has not led a replying adavit and the application is unopposed. The applicant led written submissions dated 30th August 2026. She prayed that the application be allowed. 5. 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 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 “sucient 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 eect 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”. 6. I have considered the Notice of Motion, the adavit and the annexures thereto as well as the law. The judgment was delivered on 26th March 2026 and the applicant led a notice of appeal on 14th April 2026. The applicant has demonstrated that her advocates made several attempts to obtain the certied copies of proceedings and the decree and that they were issued on 14th July 2026, as evidenced by the certicate of delay. I nd that the applicant deserves the exercise of discretion for the reason that the delay of about four months, which is not inordinate, has been explained. The same was due to factors not within her control. Accordingly, I direct the applicant to le her 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/2026/1932/eng@2026-09-25 2

page 2 of 2