In a significant ruling that underscores the judiciary’s evolving approach to digital systems, the Court of Appeal of Kenya has allowed an application for extension of time after a litigant was locked out of the appeals process due to a technical error in the court’s e-filing system.
The decision, delivered on March 17, 2026, in Civil Application No. E010 of 2026, involved Hezron Mwangi, who had sought permission to file both a notice of appeal and a record of appeal out of time following a High Court judgment delivered in March 2025.
At the center of the dispute was not just a delay—but the cause of that delay. Mwangi argued that his inability to proceed with the appeal was due to an unexpected and significant glitch in the court’s electronic filing system, which generated an inflated invoice far beyond the prescribed filing fees.
According to court records, after the High Court delivered its judgment on March 12, 2025, Mwangi acted promptly by filing a notice of appeal within the required timeline and applying for typed proceedings. The proceedings were eventually made available in July 2025, placing him within the procedural framework to move forward with his appeal.
However, when his legal team attempted to file the record of appeal, the system issued an invoice of KSh100,800 instead of the expected KSh6,000. This discrepancy triggered a prolonged effort to have the error corrected, but the system remained unresponsive.
The applicant’s advocates were eventually advised that the only way forward was to pay the erroneous amount. As a result, they escalated the matter to an insurer, Madison General Insurance, which only released the funds in January 2026. By that time, the respondent had already successfully applied to strike out the initial notice of appeal.
Faced with this setback, Mwangi moved back to court seeking extension of time, arguing that the delay was neither intentional nor within his control.
The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the intended appeal lacked merit and that the delay was unjustified. They emphasized that litigation must come to an end and warned that allowing the application would prolong the dispute unnecessarily.
However, the Court of Appeal took a different view.
In a detailed analysis, the court reaffirmed the principles governing extension of time under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules. These include evaluating the length of delay, reasons for the delay, chances of success of the intended appeal, and the level of prejudice to the respondent.
Applying these principles, the court found that Mwangi had provided a credible and reasonable explanation for the delay. The judge noted that the applicant had acted diligently and that the delay arose from a system-generated error, not negligence or inaction on his part.
Importantly, the court emphasized that litigants should not be punished for administrative or technological failures within the judicial system. It acknowledged that Kenya’s transition to e-filing, while progressive, still presents practical challenges that can affect access to justice.
The ruling highlighted that the time between July 2025 and January 2026 was spent attempting to resolve the billing error—a process that ultimately failed, forcing the applicant to pay the inflated amount before proceeding.
In addressing the argument that the intended appeal was not arguable, the court clarified that at this stage, it was not required to determine the merits of the appeal conclusively. Instead, it only needed to establish whether the appeal was frivolous or raised legitimate issues for consideration. The court found that the appeal met this threshold.
On the issue of prejudice, the respondents failed to demonstrate any harm that could not be compensated through costs. The court therefore held that denying the applicant an opportunity to appeal would be unjust, particularly given the constitutional right to be heard.
In a notable reference to judicial philosophy, the court invoked the principle that justice should remain flexible and responsive, rather than rigid. It cited past jurisprudence emphasizing that mistakes—especially those not caused by litigants—should not automatically shut the door to justice.
Ultimately, the court allowed the application, granting Mwangi 14 days to file and serve both the notice of appeal and the record of appeal. Costs of the application were ordered to abide by the outcome of the intended appeal.
This ruling carries broader implications beyond the parties involved. It signals the judiciary’s recognition of the challenges posed by digital transformation and its willingness to adapt procedural rules to ensure fairness.
As Kenya continues to digitise its court systems, cases like this highlight the need for robust, reliable platforms—and the importance of safeguarding litigants from unintended consequences of technological failures.
For legal practitioners and litigants alike, the decision serves as both a reassurance and a caution: while the courts are willing to accommodate genuine challenges, diligence and prompt action remain critical in navigating the justice system.
In the end, the Court of Appeal’s message was clear—justice must not be derailed by system errors, and where fairness demands, the courts will intervene to keep the door open.
