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 AppealDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KECA 1403 (KLR)

Caroline Khavere v Peter Khendi Kavuludi & 3 others

Court of Appeal of Kenya
31 July 2025
1,997 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out a challenge to a Notice of Appeal because it was filed one day late, proving strict deadlines can decide cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kisumu (Asike-Makhandia, H. A. Omondi and L. Kimaru, JJAA) delivered on 31st July 2025 on a Notice of Motion dated 23rd July 2024 brought by Caroline Khavere under sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 77(1)(6), 79(1) and 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. The applicant sought to strike out, or in the alternative to deem withdrawn, a Notice of Appeal dated 13th June 2024 lodged by the respondent against a judgment of the Environment and Land Court delivered on 13th June 2024. The applicant argued that the notice was defective for non-conformity with Rule 77(6), that it was served outside the seven-day period prescribed by Rule 79(1), and that no record of appeal had been filed within ten months. The respondent conceded service was two days late but attributed this to e-filing network connectivity problems and delays in endorsement by the Deputy Registrar at the Vihiga ELC. The Court did not reach the merits of the alleged defects. It found it common ground that the Notice of Appeal was served on 26th June 2024 and the strike-out application was lodged on 25th July 2024, one day outside the thirty-day limit imposed by the proviso to Rule 86, with no leave sought to file out of time. Applying its precedents, including Joyce Bochere Nyamweya and William Mwangi Ngaruki, the Court held the proviso is mandatory and the application a non-starter. The motion was struck out with costs to the respondent. The Notice of Appeal therefore remains on record, and the underlying appeal remains live.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the strike-out application complied with the proviso to Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Holding

The application, filed on 25th July 2024 following service of the Notice of Appeal on 26th June 2024, was one day outside the thirty-day limit and was therefore incompetent; no leave for extension was sought.

Reasoning

The proviso to Rule 86 bars any application to strike out a Notice of Appeal brought more than thirty days from the date of service of the notice or record of appeal. The Court found it common ground that service was effected on 26th June 2024 and the motion was lodged on 25th July 2024, one day late. Relying on Joyce Bochere Nyamweya and William Mwangi Ngaruki, the Court held the proviso is couched in mandatory terms and leaves no discretion; the application was dismissed with costs.

p. 3
02

Whether the Court may strike out a Notice of Appeal for want of form or procedural non-compliance

Holding

The Court is empowered to strike out a Notice of Appeal or record of appeal for want of form or procedural default, but the power must be exercised carefully and only where the failure is flagrant, deliberate, flippant or reckless.

Reasoning

Relying on Mukenya Ndunda v Crater Automobiles Limited, the Court reiterated that striking out is a power to be exercised cautiously, only where the party at fault flagrantly, deliberately, flippantly or recklessly failed to follow the rules. However, before reaching that question, the time bar in the proviso to Rule 86 was decisive, since the application was itself out of time and no leave to file out of time had been obtained.

p. 4
03

Commencement and service of an appeal to the Court of Appeal

Holding

An appeal to the Court of Appeal is commenced by a Notice of Appeal lodged within fourteen days of the decision and served on all persons directly affected within seven days of lodging.

Reasoning

The Court restated the framework under rules 77 and 79(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022: a party desiring to appeal must give notice in writing within fourteen days of the decision, and must serve the lodged Notice of Appeal on all persons directly affected within seven days of lodging. These provisions framed the applicant's complaints, but the Court's decision turned on the applicant's own failure to observe the thirty-day limit in Rule 86.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application to strike out a Notice of Appeal or an appeal must be brought within thirty days from the date of service of the notice of appeal or record of appeal; the time limit in the proviso to Rule 86 is mandatory and the Court has no discretion to extend it absent leave sought and obtained.
  • An application to strike out a Notice of Appeal brought after thirty days from service is a non-starter and incompetent unless leave is sought and obtained to file it out of time.
  • The power to strike out an appeal or notice of appeal for non-compliance with procedure must be exercised cautiously, only where the non-compliance is flagrant, deliberate, flippant or reckless.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 23rd July 2024 is struck out
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
On appeal from
Environment and Land Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rules 77(1)(6), 79(1) and 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Caroline Khavere v Peter Khendi Kavuludi & 3 others", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1403/eng@2025-07-31

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