Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNotice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 (Civil Appeal application)· [2026] KECA 412 (KLR)

Kenya Meat Commission v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Civil Appeal (Application) E425 of 2025) [2026] KECA 412 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
27 February 2026
JMJamila Mohammed
597 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 Meat Commission lost its appeal record because it couldn't prove it served a key letter on the union — proof of service is now non-negotiable at the Court of Appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by Jamila Mohammed, JA, on 27th February 2026, on a Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 brought by Kenya Meat Commission under Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. The applicant sought extension of time to file and serve a Record of Appeal against a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 23rd January 2025, and sought to have its Record of Appeal filed on 4th June 2025 deemed properly filed. Kenya Union of Commercial Foods and Allied Workers opposed. The court examined Rule 84(1), which requires an appeal to be instituted within sixty days of the Notice of Appeal, with exclusion only where proceedings were requested in writing within thirty days and the letter served on the respondent. Although a bespeaking letter dated 7th February 2025 was written, there was no affidavit of service or acknowledgment proving service on respondent's counsel. Relying on its prior decisions in Musambayi v Katula and Marwa v Chacha, and the Supreme Court's Salat decision, the court held that service of the bespeaking letter is mandatory, that time runs uninterrupted absent proof of service, and that the omission is substantive and not curable under Article 159(2)(d). The motion was dismissed, the Record of Appeal struck out, and costs awarded to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant met the Rule 4 threshold for extension of time given non-service of the letter bespeaking proceedings

Holding

The application fails; without proof of service of the bespeaking letter, time under Rule 84 runs uninterrupted and the Record of Appeal filed 4th June 2025 was out of time.

Reasoning

Rule 84(1) requires an appeal to be instituted within sixty days of the Notice of Appeal, with time excluded only where proceedings were requested in writing within thirty days and the letter served on the respondent. Although a letter dated 7th February 2025 was written, no affidavit of service or acknowledgment proved service on respondent's counsel. Following binding precedent, extension of time is an equitable remedy for a deserving party who has complied with procedural requirements; the defect is substantive, not curable under Article 159(2)(d).

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Service of the letter bespeaking proceedings on the respondent is mandatory; exclusion of time under Rule 84 is available only upon proof of such service.
  • Where service of the letter bespeaking proceedings is not demonstrated, time runs uninterrupted and a certificate of delay cannot be relied upon.
  • Omission to serve the letter bespeaking proceedings is a substantive defect not curable under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Record of Appeal filed on 4th June 2025 is struck out
  3. 3.The respondent shall have the costs of the application
On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Meat Commission v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Civil Appeal (Application) E425 of 2025) [2026] KECA 412 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 (Civil Appeal application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/412/eng@2026-02-27

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