1. The small claims court delivered a judgment in favour of the respondent on 24th October 2025. The appellant was aggrieved by it. Despite his grievance, he took no step until 10th February 2026, when the application before the court was filed.
2. The application is opposed by the respondent. It averred that no explanation has been given for the delay in filing the instant appeal. Further, it was stated that appeals to the High Court from the decisions of the Small Claims Court are limited to matters of law only. In its view, the proposed appeal is based on matters of fact which are outside the scope of the appellate court.
3. As stated in Leo Sila Mutiso Vs Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi; CACA No. 255 of 1999:
“It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well settled that in general the matters which this Court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are: first the length of the delay, secondly, the reason for the delay; thirdly (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted; and, fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.”
4. In the case of Omar Shurie v Marian Rashe Yafar [2020] KECA 492 (KLR), it was held that:
“There is no maximum or minimum period of delay set out under the law. However, a prolonged and inordinate delay is more likely than not to disentitle the applicant leave. Likewise, the reason or reasons for the delay must be plausible. In Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR, this Court stated:
“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 delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.”
5. I have considered the application. I am not satisfied that the 79-day delay in filing the application was sufficiently explained, nor that the reasons given for the lapse are sufficient. What I saw was a case of a negligent litigant seeking the court's help. This court won’t come to the aid of an indolent litigant.
6. I would agree with the Respondent that appeals in small claims matters are on matters of law only. The proposed appeal raises factual issues. Such an appeal, even on a prima facie basis, is unlikely to succeed.
7. The Respondent is likely to be prejudiced if the appeal is filed out of time.
8. That being the case, the application before me is bereft of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
9. It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered in Nairobi, this 15th day of May 2026.
2. The application is opposed by the respondent. It averred that no explanation has been given for the delay in filing the instant appeal. Further, it was stated that appeals to the High Court from the decisions of the Small Claims Court are limited to matters of law only. In its view, the proposed appeal is based on matters of fact which are outside the scope of the appellate court.
3. As stated in Leo Sila Mutiso Vs Rose Hellen Wangari Mwangi; CACA No. 255 of 1999:
“It is now well settled that the decision whether or not to extend the time for appealing is essentially discretionary. It is also well settled that in general the matters which this Court takes into account in deciding whether to grant an extension of time are: first the length of the delay, secondly, the reason for the delay; thirdly (possibly) the chances of the appeal succeeding if the application is granted; and, fourthly, the degree of prejudice to the respondent if the application is granted.”
4. In the case of Omar Shurie v Marian Rashe Yafar [2020] KECA 492 (KLR), it was held that:
“There is no maximum or minimum period of delay set out under the law. However, a prolonged and inordinate delay is more likely than not to disentitle the applicant leave. Likewise, the reason or reasons for the delay must be plausible. In Andrew Kiplagat Chemaringo v Paul Kipkorir Kibet [2018] eKLR, this Court stated:
“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 delay is the key that unlocks the court’s flow of discretionary favour. There has to be valid and clear reasons, upon which discretion can be favourably exercisable.”
5. I have considered the application. I am not satisfied that the 79-day delay in filing the application was sufficiently explained, nor that the reasons given for the lapse are sufficient. What I saw was a case of a negligent litigant seeking the court's help. This court won’t come to the aid of an indolent litigant.
6. I would agree with the Respondent that appeals in small claims matters are on matters of law only. The proposed appeal raises factual issues. Such an appeal, even on a prima facie basis, is unlikely to succeed.
7. The Respondent is likely to be prejudiced if the appeal is filed out of time.
8. That being the case, the application before me is bereft of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
9. It is so ordered.
Dated and delivered in Nairobi, this 15th day of May 2026.