Rono v Sirtich (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Michael Kiptum Sirtich)

3. d. That it was not until 24th July 2023, when the applicant’s advocate was supplied with certied copies of judgment and proceedings, upon which he led a record of appeal on behalf of the applicant on 15th August 2023, and further sought a certicate of delay from the court; e. That non-compliance with the Rules was due to delay caused by circumstances beyond the applicant’s control; f. That it is in the interest of justice that the notice of appeal and record of appeal led on 6th March 2023 and 15th August 2023 respectively and served upon the respondents be deemed as duly led and served; g. That the applicant’s intended appeal is arguable and has overwhelming prospects of success. Despite due service, the respondent did not respond to the application. The application is brought under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, which provides as follows: “ The Court may, on such terms as may be just, by order, extend the time limited by these Rules, or by any decision of the Court or a superior court, for the doing of any act authorized or required by these Rules, whether before or after the doing of the act, and a reference in these Rules to any such time shall be construed as a reference to that time as extended.” 4. In his submissions dated 19th June 2024, the applicant refers to this Court’s decision in Njoroge v Kimani [2022] KECA 1188 (KLR) where it was held that an applicant seeking extension of time is required to explain the delay, which explanation must be reasonable enough to excuse the default. 5. In its decision in Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR the Supreme Court stated the following: “ The law does not set out any minimum or maximum period of delay. All it states is that any delay should be satisfactorily explained. A plausible and satisfactory explanation for the delay is the key that unlocks the court’s ow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.” 6. In explaining the delay in this case, the applicant states that his advocate sent a notice of appeal, by email to the trial court on 16th February 2023, within a week of entry of the judgment. The applicant further states that his request for an invoice from the trial court registry did not elicit a response. 7. Thereafter, the applicant applied for certied copies of the trial proceedings and judgment on 13th February 2023, within 30 days of delivery of the judgment. He annexed several correspondences sent by his advocate to the trial court, inquiring about the proceedings and judgment. The proceeding and judgment were eventually provided on 24th July 2023 and on 15th August 2023, the applicant led his record of appeal. 8. From the foregoing, it is evident that the delay in progressing the appeal was not occasioned by the applicant. I will therefore exercise discretion in his favour and admit the notice of appeal and record of appeal led on 6th March 2023 and 15th August 2023 respectively as duly led. 9. The application being undefended, I will make no order for costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 2ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/2054/eng@2026-10-02 2

page 2 of 3

L.M. NDOLO …………………….…………… 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/2026/2054/eng@2026-10-02 3

page 3 of 3