Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCivil Application No. 28 of 2014

Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (I E B C) & another v Philip Mukui Wasike & another [2014] KECA 394 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
19 September 2014
933 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that an unprosecuted appeal notice is automatically deemed withdrawn after sixty days, and applications to strike out notices must be filed within thirty days.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, the IEBC and Silas Rotich, moved the Court of Appeal at Kisumu under Rules 83 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking to strike out a notice of appeal lodged on 11th October 2013 by Philip Mukui Wasike against a judgment of Hellen Omondi J delivered on 26th September 2013 in Election Petition No. 5 of 2013 (High Court, Bungoma). The application was unopposed; the respondent neither filed papers nor attended, and the motion proceeded ex parte. The court declined the striking-out prayer on two grounds. First, under the proviso to rule 84, an application to strike out a notice or record of appeal must be brought within thirty days of service of the notice or record; the notice was served on the applicants' advocates on 14th October 2013 but the application was lodged on 14th April 2014, far out of time. Second, the complaint that the notice of appeal was lodged at Bungoma High Court rather than in the Court of Appeal was misplaced: rule 59(1) requires the notice to be lodged with the Registrar of the High Court where the decision appealed against was given. However, the applicants' reliance on rule 83 succeeded. Rule 82(1) requires an appeal to be instituted within sixty days of lodging the notice of appeal, giving the respondent until 11th April 2014; there was no evidence he instituted the appeal. The court therefore deemed the notice of appeal withdrawn under rule 83 and ordered the respondent to pay the applicants' costs. The decision binds subordinate courts and the High Court on the thirty-day time bar, the correct registry for lodging notices of appeal, and the deemed-withdrawal mechanism under rule 83.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicants' application to strike out the notice of appeal is barred by the proviso to rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules requiring such applications within thirty days of service
  2. 2.Whether a notice of appeal must be lodged in the Court of Appeal rather than the High Court registry where the decision was given
  3. 3.Whether the respondent should be deemed to have withdrawn his notice of appeal under rule 83 for failure to institute an appeal within the appointed time

Key legal issues

#
01

Time bar under the proviso to rule 84

Holding

The application to strike out was out of time and the relief was unavailable.

Reasoning

The notice of appeal was served on the applicants' advocates on 14th October 2013. The application to strike out was lodged on 14th April 2014, six months later. Under the proviso to rule 84, such an application must be made within thirty days of service, so the striking-out prayer was not available to the applicants.

p. 2
02

Correct registry for lodging a notice of appeal

Holding

The notice of appeal was properly lodged with the Registrar of the High Court at Bungoma.

Reasoning

The applicants relied on rule 59(1) to argue the notice of appeal ought to have been lodged in the Court of Appeal. The court held that a plain reading of the rule shows the notice of appeal should be lodged with the Registrar of the High Court where the decision sought to be appealed was given, which was Bungoma High Court. The ground therefore failed.

p. 2
03

Deemed withdrawal under rule 83 for failure to institute appeal

Holding

Having failed to file a record of appeal within sixty days, the respondent's notice of appeal was deemed withdrawn.

Reasoning

Under rule 82(1), an appeal must be instituted by lodging in the appropriate registry, within sixty days of the lodging of the notice of appeal, a memorandum of appeal, record of appeal, prescribed fee and security for costs. The notice was lodged on 11th October 2013, so the respondent had until 11th April 2014. There was no evidence he did so, and the court applied rule 83 to deem the notice withdrawn, with costs to the applicants.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An application to strike out a notice or record of appeal under rule 84 must be brought within thirty days of service of the notice of appeal or record of appeal; applications filed after that period are incompetent.
  • A notice of appeal is properly lodged with the Registrar of the High Court where the decision appealed against was given, not in the Court of Appeal registry.
  • Where a party who has lodged a notice of appeal fails to institute the appeal within sixty days of lodging the notice, the notice is deemed withdrawn under rule 83 and the party in default is liable to pay costs.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of appeal dated and lodged 11th October, 2013 is deemed to have been withdrawn
  2. 2.The respondent, Philip Mukui Wasike, shall pay the costs of the applicants

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority
majority
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Bungoma
Election Petition No. 5 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Rules 83 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application to strike out notice of appeal)

Relief refused

#

Striking out of the notice of appeal

Application filed more than thirty days after service of the notice of appeal, contrary to the proviso to rule 84

p. 2

Striking out on the ground that the notice of appeal was lodged in the High Court

Rule 59(1) requires lodging of the notice of appeal with the Registrar of the High Court where the decision was given

p. 2

Costs

The respondent, Philip Mukui Wasike, shall be liable to pay the costs of the applicants.

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

an application to strike out a notice or record of appeal should not be brought after the expiry of thirty (30) days from the date of service of the notice of appeal or record of appeal
p. 2Time bar on striking-out applications under proviso to rule 84
the notice of appeal should indeed be lodged with the Registrar of the High court where the decision against which it is desired to appeal was given, which in this case, was Bungoma High Court
p. 2Correct registry for lodging notice of appeal under rule 59(1)
If a party who has lodged a notice of appeal fails to institute an appeal within the appointed time he shall be deemed to have withdrawn his notice of appeal
p. 2Deemed withdrawal under rule 83
In the premises, applying the provisions of rule 83 of the rules, the notice of appeal dated and lodged 11th October, 2013 is hereby deemed to have been withdrawn.
p. 2Final orders - deemed withdrawal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (I E B C) & another v Philip Mukui Wasike & another [2014] KECA 394 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2014). Civil Application No. 28 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2014/394/eng@2014-09-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.