Kanyoko & 2 others v Kamere & another (Civil Application E313 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1052 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed that a notice of appeal dies automatically if you don't file the appeal within 60 days — no excuses, no exceptions without court leave.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a case has been made to mark the appeal as withdrawn pursuant to rule 85(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, the respondents having failed to institute the appeal within the appointed time
Key legal issues
#Whether the notice of appeal dated 24th June 2021 should be deemed withdrawn for failure to file the record of appeal within 60 days
Yes. The appeal was not instituted within the 60-day period prescribed by rule 84, so under rule 85(1) the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn and the Court so ordered, with costs to the applicants.
Rule 85(1) provides that a party who lodges a notice of appeal but fails to institute an appeal within the appointed time is deemed to have withdrawn the notice, and the Court may so order on its own motion or on application. The notice was lodged on 24th June 2021; 69 days elapsed with no record of appeal and no request for certified proceedings. The discretion is unfettered but must be exercised judiciously, and the respondents' unexplained delay and history of dilatory conduct justified the order.
Whether the respondents' conduct amounted to abuse of the court process
The Court found that the respondents were litigating in pieces, filing repetitive motions and repeatedly seeking the Court's intervention to cure their own inaction; equity does not aid the indolent.
The Court reviewed the long procedural history: multiple applications to set aside interlocutory judgment, successive notices of appeal struck out or abandoned, repeated extension-of-time applications, and failure to comply with timelines. Comparing the matter to Jarndyce v Jarndyce, it held the respondents were taking the Court's discretion for granted and had abused the process through omissions, inaction and delay.
Legal principles established
#- Where a party lodges a notice of appeal but fails to institute the appeal within the appointed time, the notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn by effluxion of time under rule 85(1), and the Court may so declare on application or on its own motion.
- A party whose notice of appeal is deemed withdrawn must, to pursue the appeal, obtain an extension of time under rule 4, supported by a reasonable explanation for the delay and demonstration that the appeal is arguable.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of appeal dated 24th June, 2021 is deemed as withdrawn pursuant to rule 85 of the Court of Appeal Rules
- 2.Costs of the application to the applicants
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court (superior court / trial court)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 85(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules (deemed withdrawal of notice of appeal)
Relief refused
#No relief sought by the respondents; the application was unopposed and fully allowed
The respondents did not appear to oppose and offered no explanation for the delay
Costs
Costs of the application to the applicants
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.
For the reasons above, this application is allowed. Accordingly, since the respondents have failed to institute an appeal within the appointed time, the notice of appeal date 24th June, 2021 is hereby deemed as withdrawn pursuant to rule 85 of the Court of Appeal Rules, with costs to the applicants.
If the respondents wish to pursue their appeal, they must approach this Court under rule 4 for extension of time and must provide reasonable explanation for the delay and demonstrate that the intended appeal is arguable.
rule 83 is such that the withdrawal of notice of appeal is automatic by efiuxion of time if the sixty-day window passes without action.
They must understand that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. And he who seeks equity must do equity.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal chronological inconsistency in the narrative: paragraph 3 states the ruling setting aside the interlocutory judgment was of 6th December 2013, while paragraph 4 describes the same application as resulting in a ruling by Mutungi, J. of 3rd July 2013; paragraph 8 also refers to a 'ruling of Mutungi, J. of 14th July, 2014' not otherwise accounted for.
The judgment cites 'rule 83' when discussing deemed withdrawal, though the rule actually quoted and applied is rule 85(1).
The hearing date is recorded as 23rd March 2026, several years after the application of 31st August 2021 and the supporting submissions of 16th December 2021.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kanyoko & 2 others v Kamere & another (Civil Application E313 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1052 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 31st August 2021. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1052/eng@2026-05-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.