Royal Sian Limited v Cove Investments Limited & 5 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E189 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1090 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an appeal entirely because the appellant missed filing and service deadlines, so Cove Investments' land victory now stands.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Was the record of appeal filed and served in accordance with the Rules?
- 2.Was the supplementary record of appeal filed and served in accordance with the Rules?
- 3.Was the notice of appeal by the 1st respondent filed and served in accordance with the timelines set out in the Rules, or should it be treated as a second notice of appeal (a notice of address)?
- 4.Was the notice of appeal by the 2nd respondent filed and served in accordance with the Rules?
Key legal issues
#Whether the record of appeal was filed and served within the timelines set by the Court of Appeal Rules
It was not; the 1st respondent did not file or serve the record of appeal within time, and the 11th December 2024 letter requesting proceedings was lodged outside the 30-day window and not copied to the applicant, so time did not stop running.
Rule 84(2) requires a letter requesting proceedings to be lodged within 30 days of the impugned decision and copied to the other party. The ruling was delivered in October 2024; the respondent's own letter of 11th December 2024 was outside that period and was never copied to the applicant. Consequently time never stopped running, the record and supplementary record were out of time, and the appeal was improperly before the Court.
Whether the notices of appeal were served within time
Neither notice was validly served: the 2nd respondent's notice was sent to a wrong email address that did not belong to the applicant, and the 1st respondent's notice was not served at all.
The process server's affidavit deponed service to one email address, but the annexed attachment showed the notice was sent to a different, admittedly wrong address. The applicant denied that the alternative email address belonged to it, and there was nothing to controvert that denial. Service to a wrong address is no service, and both notices of appeal therefore failed the service requirements of the Rules.
Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to salvage the defective appeals
It should not; the defects were jurisdictional, and the Rules are enacted to facilitate the proper administration of justice.
While courts possess inherent jurisdiction to regulate their process in the interests of justice, that reserve of powers is exercised only where it is just and equitable. Here the respondents failed to comply with the fundamental requirements of filing and serving the notice and record of appeal, which go to the Court's jurisdiction, and no discretionary rescue was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is properly invoked only by filing and serving a notice of appeal in accordance with the Rules.
- A letter requesting typed proceedings must be lodged within 30 days of the impugned decision and copied to the other party; time does not stop running where this is not done.
- A supplementary record of appeal cannot cure a record of appeal that was never filed and served within the prescribed timelines.
Court orders
#- 1.The consolidated applications (E189 of 2024, E002 of 2025 and E007 of 2025) are allowed
- 2.The record and memorandum of appeal and the two notices of appeal are struck out
- 3.The orders of stay granted in Civil Application No 103 of 2024 stand vacated
- 4.The applicant is awarded the costs of the 3 consolidated applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Nakuru
- Petition No 360 of 2017 (ruling by Odeny, J. dated 15th October 2024)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court and the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010/2022 (Rules 79, 82, 84(2), 86, 94) governing striking out of appeals not filed or served in accordance with the Rules
- Consolidated with
- Civil Application No E189 of 2024, Civil Application No E002 of 2025, Civil Application No E007 of 2025
Relief refused
#Respondents' plea that the Court exercise its discretion and allow the appeals to proceed to a full hearing
The defects raised were jurisdictional, not procedural, and the Court declined to invoke its inherent jurisdiction
Costs
The applicant shall have the costs of the 3 consolidated applications.
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.
Accordingly, we allow them with the consequence that the record and memorandum of appeal and the two notices of appeal are hereby struck out. For avoidance of doubt, the orders of stay granted in Civil Application No 103 of 2024 stand vacated.
This Court has stated time and again that the jurisdiction of the Court can only be properly invoked by filing and serving a notice of appeal.
The rules of the Court are enacted for a purpose, that is to facilitate the proper administration of justice.
Rule 84(2) of this Court’s Rules clearly states that a letter requesting for proceedings must be lodged within 30 days from the date of the impugned decision and should be copied to the other party.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states the ruling was delivered on 15th October 2024 in places but refers to '15th October 2025' elsewhere, including in the quoted request for proceedings and in the applicant's own computations.
Dates for the notices of appeal are inconsistently given as 28th October 2024 and 28th October 2025.
The paragraph citing Telkom Kenya Limited v John Ochanda announces the holding but the quoted passage from that case does not appear in the text provided.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Royal Sian Limited v Cove Investments Limited & 5 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E189 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1090 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Applications Nos E189 of 2024, E002 of 2025 and E007 of 2025 (consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1090/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.