REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL CASE MISC. NO. E202 OF 2024
CHRISPINE KIPSANG MURUNGA…………..……………..……..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FORUM FOR RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY
(FORD) KENYA & OTHERS……………………………..………RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Vide a notice of motion dated, 12.9.2024 the applicant Chrispine Kipsang Murunga approached this court under the provisions of Section 79G and 3 A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 50 Rule 6 and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the following orders:
i. The Applicant be granted leave to appeal out of time, the Ruling of the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal (PPDT) delivered on 1.7.2024.
ii. The costs of this application be in the intended appeal.
2. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 12.9.2024. It is the applicant’s case that he got certified copies of the ruling and proceedings late and that a certificate of delay was duly issued wherefore the delay has been duly explained and he is thus entitled to an extension of the limitation period to lodge an appeal against the ruling of the PPT made on 1.7.2024.
3. The respondents, save for the 9th have filed their respective responses in opposition to the application. The 9th Respondent has associated herself with her co-respondent’s responses.
4. The Respondents have maintained that the ruling delivered on 1.7.2024 is not appealable as of right and if it is then, the delay in lodging an appeal within 30 days from 1.7.2024 has not been explained. Further that the applicant has failed to explain the period of delay of 24 days in requesting for supply of the certified proceedings and ruling. Moreover, that the delay after issuance of the certificate of delay on 11.9.2024 has not been justified.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Parties advocates further highlighted their respective clients’ submissions. I have duly considered the application herein, the responses filed in opposition thereto the rival submissions of parties and the highlighting made thereto and the issue that arises for determination is whether the applicant has made out a case for extension of time to lodge an appeal.
6. The operative Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act prescribes a period of 30 days within which to file an appeal. This timeline can be extended upon good cause being shown. The case of Nicholas Arap Salat vs IEBC & 7 others [2014] eKLR is the Locus Classica in application for extension of time. The following principles were set out in that case: -
a) Extension of time was not a right of a party. It was an equitable remedy that was only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;
b) A party who sought extension of time had the burden of laying a basis for it to the satisfaction of the court;
c) Whether the court ought to exercise the discretion to extend time, was a consideration to be made on a case-to-case basis;
d) Whether there was a reasonable reason for the delay, which ought to be explained to the satisfaction of the court;
e) Whether there would be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension was granted;
f) Whether the application had been brought without undue delay; and;
g) Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest ought to be a consideration for extending time.
7. The applicant herein has failed to explain the 24 days before requesting for certified copies of proceedings and ruling. Given that the appeal ought to have been lodged within 30 days and I do find that the applicant was indolent. Further the intended appeal, is only meant to serve an academic purpose and whereas it is not open for the court to gauge its probability of success at this juncture, I do find that an appellant who desires to engage this court in an academic discourse ought to move the court timeously as the court’s workload is overstretched with deserving cases.
8. This application is for reasons aforestated dismissed. Each party to bear its won costs.
Delivered, signed and dated at Bungoma this 27th day of February, 2026.
MWANAISHA S. SHARIFF
JUDGE
In the presence of :
Mr Wafula for 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th Respondents
Mr Mbithi for the Applicant
Peter Machoni – Court Assistant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
CIVIL CASE MISC. NO. E202 OF 2024
CHRISPINE KIPSANG MURUNGA…………..……………..……..PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
FORUM FOR RESTORATION OF DEMOCRACY
(FORD) KENYA & OTHERS……………………………..………RESPONDENT
RULING
1. Vide a notice of motion dated, 12.9.2024 the applicant Chrispine Kipsang Murunga approached this court under the provisions of Section 79G and 3 A of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 50 Rule 6 and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules for the following orders:
i. The Applicant be granted leave to appeal out of time, the Ruling of the Political Parties Dispute Tribunal (PPDT) delivered on 1.7.2024.
ii. The costs of this application be in the intended appeal.
2. The application is supported by the applicant’s affidavit sworn on 12.9.2024. It is the applicant’s case that he got certified copies of the ruling and proceedings late and that a certificate of delay was duly issued wherefore the delay has been duly explained and he is thus entitled to an extension of the limitation period to lodge an appeal against the ruling of the PPT made on 1.7.2024.
3. The respondents, save for the 9th have filed their respective responses in opposition to the application. The 9th Respondent has associated herself with her co-respondent’s responses.
4. The Respondents have maintained that the ruling delivered on 1.7.2024 is not appealable as of right and if it is then, the delay in lodging an appeal within 30 days from 1.7.2024 has not been explained. Further that the applicant has failed to explain the period of delay of 24 days in requesting for supply of the certified proceedings and ruling. Moreover, that the delay after issuance of the certificate of delay on 11.9.2024 has not been justified.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Parties advocates further highlighted their respective clients’ submissions. I have duly considered the application herein, the responses filed in opposition thereto the rival submissions of parties and the highlighting made thereto and the issue that arises for determination is whether the applicant has made out a case for extension of time to lodge an appeal.
6. The operative Section 79G of the Civil Procedure Act prescribes a period of 30 days within which to file an appeal. This timeline can be extended upon good cause being shown. The case of Nicholas Arap Salat vs IEBC & 7 others [2014] eKLR is the Locus Classica in application for extension of time. The following principles were set out in that case: -
a) Extension of time was not a right of a party. It was an equitable remedy that was only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court;
b) A party who sought extension of time had the burden of laying a basis for it to the satisfaction of the court;
c) Whether the court ought to exercise the discretion to extend time, was a consideration to be made on a case-to-case basis;
d) Whether there was a reasonable reason for the delay, which ought to be explained to the satisfaction of the court;
e) Whether there would be any prejudice suffered by the respondents if the extension was granted;
f) Whether the application had been brought without undue delay; and;
g) Whether in certain cases, like election petitions, public interest ought to be a consideration for extending time.
7. The applicant herein has failed to explain the 24 days before requesting for certified copies of proceedings and ruling. Given that the appeal ought to have been lodged within 30 days and I do find that the applicant was indolent. Further the intended appeal, is only meant to serve an academic purpose and whereas it is not open for the court to gauge its probability of success at this juncture, I do find that an appellant who desires to engage this court in an academic discourse ought to move the court timeously as the court’s workload is overstretched with deserving cases.
8. This application is for reasons aforestated dismissed. Each party to bear its won costs.
Delivered, signed and dated at Bungoma this 27th day of February, 2026.
MWANAISHA S. SHARIFF
JUDGE
In the presence of :
Mr Wafula for 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th Respondents
Mr Mbithi for the Applicant
Peter Machoni – Court Assistant