The Board of Trustees of Local Authorities Provident Fund & Another v Kenya County Government Workers Union & 67 Others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out a late notice of appeal, confirming that filing deadlines are strict and cannot be excused by general fairness arguments.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Notice of Appeal dated 22nd July 2020 was lodged within the fourteen days prescribed by Rule 75(2)
- 2.Whether the Notice of Appeal was served within seven days as required by Rule 77(1)
- 3.Whether the record of appeal was served within the time prescribed by Rule 90(1)
- 4.Whether the overriding objective, Article 159(2)(d) and the Court's inherent powers can cure the admitted procedural lapses in an application under Rule 84
- 5.Whether the impugned Notice of Appeal should be struck out
Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal under Rule 75(2)
The notice was admittedly lodged outside the fourteen-day period and was invalid; the lapse goes to jurisdiction and could not be ignored
The ruling was delivered on 3rd July 2020, so the notice was due by 17th July 2020 (with weekend discounts). It was lodged on 22nd July 2020. The Court held that timeliness of filing is a fundamental jurisdictional issue and that no remedial step, such as an extension-of-time application, was taken to regularise the admittedly faulty process.
Whether saving principles can cure the lapses in a Rule 84 application
The overriding objective, Article 159(2)(d) and inherent powers cannot be invoked to salvage procedural lapses in a Rule 84 strike-out application; those parameters belong to Rule 4 applications
The Court reviewed its own precedents holding that lodging an appeal out of time is a substantive issue not curable by the overriding objective, and that the '02 principle' must be exercised judicially with proper foundation. It found nothing in the cited principles to excuse the respondents' inaction once the complaints were raised.
Service of the Notice of Appeal and record of appeal
Neither the notice nor the record was served within the seven-day periods in Rules 77(1) and 90(1); the lapses vitiate the appellate process
The respondents conceded non-compliance with both service timelines and took no regularising steps, relying instead on saving principles. The Court adopted the Monirei exposition on the mandatory nature of Rule 77(1) and applied the same reasoning to the Rule 90(1) lapse in striking out the notice.
Legal principles established
#- A notice of appeal must be lodged within fourteen days of the decision appealed against; non-compliance is a jurisdictional lapse curable only by extension of time, not by the overriding objective in a Rule 84 application
- Whether an appeal is filed on time goes to the jurisdiction of the Court; an appeal filed out of time without leave is a proper candidate for striking out
- Failure to serve a Notice of Appeal within the prescribed time occasions prejudice and Rule 77(1) is couched in mandatory terms
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Appeal dated 22nd July 2020, filed in the Employment and Labour Relations Court and served upon the Applicant's counsel on 13th August 2020, is struck out with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- Nairobi Petition No. 222 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 75, 77(1), 84 and 90(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Respondents' invitation to apply overriding objective, Article 159(2)(d) and inherent powers to save the appellate process
Those parameters fall for consideration under Rule 4 applications, not Rule 84 strike-out applications; no remedial steps were taken
Costs
Application allowed as prayed; Notice of Appeal struck out with costs.
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.
In the result, we find merit in the applicants' application. It is allowed as prayed: that Notice of Appeal dated 22nd July, 2020 and filed in the Employment and Labour Relations Court and served upon the Applicant's counsel on 13th August, 2020 is hereby struck out with costs.
issue as to whether or not an appeal is filed on time is a fundamental issue as it goes to the jurisdiction of the Court
That would explain why Rule 77 (1) of the Court of Appeal Rules is couched in mandatory terms.
the overriding principle is not a panacea for all ills and in every situation, and that proper basis must be laid before the Court can invoke the same in favor of a party
extension of time is not a right of a party. It is an equitable remedy that is only available to a deserving party at the discretion of the court
Issues in the judgment
#Salat case cited with inconsistent years (2013 and 2014) for what appears to be the same decision
Background recites Petition No. 213 of 2019 filed 8th November 2019 but styled 'Okiya Omtatah Okoiti vs. The County Governments Retirement Scheme & 152 Others' with differing numbering from the heading
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "The Board of Trustees of Local Authorities Provident Fund & Another v Kenya County Government Workers Union & 67 Others", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application No. E248 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/1087/eng@2021-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.