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 AppealStruck OutNotice of motion dated 16th May 2024 (appeal from Malindi HCCA No. 89 of 2022)· [2025] KECA 804 (KLR)

Julius Chilumo Lulu v Florence Nicole Njenga & 1 other

Court of Appeal
9 May 2025
907 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 struck out a stay application because the party never filed a valid notice of appeal against the order being challenged.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an interlocutory notice of motion dated 16th May 2024 before the Court of Appeal at Mombasa, in which the applicant sought vacation of orders issued by the High Court at Malindi (S M Githinji, J) on 15th June 2023 in HCCA No. 89 of 2022, and a stay of proceedings in that appeal, including writing or delivery of any ruling or judgment, pending an intended appeal. The Court noted at the outset that the record was scanty and had been selectively compiled, omitting the pleadings and decision in Malindi Succession Cause No. E001 of 2022, the respondents' interlocutory application, the affidavits, the notice of appeal and the memorandum of appeal. It declined to determine whether the omission was deliberate. The applicant relied on Order 42 rule 6 and Order 22 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, which the Court held have no place in proceedings before it. Applying the Supreme Court's decisions in University of Eldoret v Sitienei and Salat v IEBC, as adopted in Apungu Arthur Kibira v IEBC, the Court held that a notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite. The only notice on record related to directions of 20th July 2023 and bore no relation to the impugned order, and there was no material suggesting the intended appeal was arguable. The motion was struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant validly invoked the Court's jurisdiction absent a notice of appeal against the impugned order

Holding

The notice of appeal annexed related only to directions of 20th July 2023, not to the impugned order of 15th June 2023; accordingly no intention to appeal against the impugned order had been expressed and the jurisdictional prerequisite was unmet.

Reasoning

The Court held that a notice of appeal is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite, following the Supreme Court's University of Eldoret decision and the Court of Appeal's Apungu Arthur Kibira decision. The only notice on record related to directions dated 20th July 2023, which 'have no relation to the impugned order'. Further, the applicant relied on Order 42 rule 6, Order 22 rule 22 and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, provisions that 'have no place in the proceedings before this court'. With no arguable appeal demonstrated, the motion was incompetent.

p. 2
02

Whether the incomplete, selectively compiled record justified dismissal of the motion

Holding

The record omitted vital documents (pleadings and decision in the succession cause, the interlocutory application and impugned order, affidavits, notice of appeal and memorandum of appeal), leaving the Court unable to assess arguability.

Reasoning

The Court noted at the outset that the record had been 'selectively compiled to exclude' vital documents relevant to determining the motion. It declined to judge whether the exclusion was 'by design or inadvertence' and confined itself to pronouncing on the motion on the scanty record before it. Combined with the absence of a proper notice of appeal, this led inexorably to striking out the motion rather than assessing the merits of stay or vacation of the High Court orders.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite to invoking the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction; without one properly on record, a party has not expressed an intention to appeal.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's notice of motion dated 16th May 2024 was struck out as incompetent
  2. 2.Costs of the motion to the respondents
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Malindi (S M Githinji, J)
HCCA No. 89 of 2022
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; the applicant invoked Order 42 rule 6 and Order 22 rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, which the Court held 'have no place in the proceedings before this court'; the jurisdictional threshold engaged was the requirement of a notice of appeal.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Julius Chilumo Lulu v Florence Nicole Njenga & 1 other", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 16th May 2024 (appeal from Malindi HCCA No. 89 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/804/eng@2025-05-09

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