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 AppealPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment

Henry v Kithinji (Civil Application E086 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1254 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
27 June 2025
624 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out a notice of appeal served 10 days late, confirming the 7-day service deadline in Rule 79 is mandatory.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application by motion under section 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 79(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking to strike out a notice of appeal dated 5th August 2024 and filed on 12th August 2024, on the ground that it was served out of the prescribed time. The underlying judgment of the Environment and Land Court at Meru, delivered on 31st July 2024, had allowed the applicant's appeal. The respondent admitted that the notice of appeal was served by email on 29th August 2024, ten days out of time, through his previous advocates, and blamed them for the default. The court held that rule 79 is couched in mandatory terms and requires an intended appellant to serve copies of the notice of appeal on all persons directly affected before or within 7 days after lodging it. Two aggravating features were noted: the notice of appeal was not lodged with the Registrar as required, and the letter bespeaking proceedings was not copied to the applicant, so the respondent could not benefit from the proviso to rule 84. The respondent had made no application for extension of time to serve the notice out of time. The court struck out the notice of appeal as irregular and defective, with costs to the applicant. The judgment was delivered at Nyeri on 27th June 2025 by a bench of three judges of appeal. Note: the judgment text contains a verbatim typographical error ('afiected') reproduced in quotations.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether a notice of appeal served out of the 7-day period prescribed by rule 79 of the Court of Appeal Rules, without an extension of time, is irregular and defective and liable to be struck out

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether late service of a notice of appeal, without an extension of time, is fatal

Holding

Yes - the notice of appeal is irregular and defective and was struck out

Reasoning

Rule 79 is couched in mandatory terms and requires service of the notice of appeal on all persons directly affected before or within 7 days of lodging. The respondent admitted service on 29th August 2024, ten days out of time, and made no application for extension of time. Additionally, the notice was not lodged with the Registrar as required, and the letter bespeaking proceedings was not copied to the applicant, disentitling the respondent from the proviso to rule 84. The notice was therefore irregular and defective.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • An intended appellant must serve copies of the notice of appeal on all persons directly affected by the appeal before or within 7 days after lodging the notice; service out of time without an extension of time renders the notice irregular and defective.
  • A respondent cannot benefit from the proviso to rule 84 (exclusion of days) where the application for proceedings was not copied to the other side in time.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Appeal dated 5th August, 2024 filed on 12th August, 2024 struck out for being irregular and defective
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the applicant

The bench

#

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

majority

Wrote the judgment

majority
majority
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court, Meru
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rule 79(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules

Relief refused

#

Respondent's implied interest in maintaining the notice of appeal / benefiting from the proviso to rule 84

The letter bespeaking proceedings was not copied to the applicant, so the respondent cannot benefit from the proviso to rule 84, and no application for extension of time to serve the notice was made

p. 2

Costs

Costs of the application to the applicant (the notice of appeal is struck out 'with costs to the applicant')

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.

Rule 79 of our rules which is couched in mandatory terms requires an intended appellant to serve copies of notice of appeal on all persons directly afiected by the appeal before or within 7 days after lodging such notice.
p. 2Mandatory requirement of service of notice of appeal within 7 days
We have looked at notice of appeal dated 5th August, 2024. It was not lodged with the Registrar as required.
p. 2Notice of appeal not lodged with the Registrar
The respondent has not applied for time-extension and in those premises the notice of appeal is irregular and defective and we strike it out with costs to the applicant.
p. 2Final orders - striking out of notice of appeal with costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment opens by describing the applicant as having succeeded in the High Court appeal, while paragraph 1 also refers to the supporting affidavit as sworn by 'a lawyer, John Muthomi' who appeared as counsel for the applicant, making the deponent's role ambiguous

minor

The judgment contains no case number, and although it records that 'cases cited' were considered, no authority is named anywhere in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Henry v Kithinji (Civil Application E086 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1254 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1254/eng@2025-06-27

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