Kaanzo v Inspector General of Police & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E406 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1545 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out a land appeal because the appellant missed mandatory filing and service deadlines, showing strict compliance with appeal rules is essential.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant's appeal should be struck out for being incompetent and for failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, specifically the failure to serve the Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal and the failure to lodge the Record of Appeal within the prescribed time.
- 2.Whether the timelines prescribed by Rules 77, 79 and 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 for filing and serving appellate documents are mandatory or merely directory.
- 3.Whether, under Rule 86, an essential step in the proceedings having not been taken or taken out of time, the court should exercise its discretion to strike out the appeal, given the appellant's non-compliance, non-opposition and non-appearance.
Key legal issues
#Whether the timelines in the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 for service of the Notice of Appeal and lodgement of the Record of Appeal are mandatory or directory.
They are mandatory and not merely directory; failure to comply, particularly concerning preparation and timely filing of a proper Record of Appeal, is fatal to an appeal.
The court set out the procedural scheme: Rule 77 governs the filing of the notice of appeal, Rule 79(1) directs service on affected parties, and Rule 84(1) and (2) require lodgement of the memorandum and record of appeal within sixty days. Adopting the Supreme Court's decision in Salat v IEBC, the court endorsed strict compliance with appellate rules. It found on the record that the appellant lodged her notice and memorandum timeously but never served them and never filed the record of appeal within the sixty days prescribed, the allegations standing wholly uncontroverted.
Whether an appeal should be struck out under Rule 86 where an essential step in the proceedings has not been taken or has been taken out of time.
Yes. Rule 86 empowers a person affected by an appeal, at any time before or after institution, to apply to strike out where an essential step has been omitted or taken out of time; on the unchallenged material the court struck the appeal out.
The court reproduced Rule 86, which permits striking out on the ground that no appeal lies or that an essential step has not been taken within the prescribed time, subject to a thirty-day limitation on such applications after service. It found non-service of the notice and memorandum of appeal and failure to lodge the record within sixty days; the appellant never sought extension of time under Rule 4 and did not appear. The court held the non-compliance fatal and going to the foundation of the appeal, and found sufficient basis to strike out.
Whether the striking-out discretion should be exercised on an unopposed application where the appellant has taken no steps to regularise the appeal.
The power is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously, but here the total non-participation of the appellant meant the applicants' allegations were conceded or could not be effectively challenged, justifying striking out.
The court acknowledged, citing Tome v Attorney General, that striking out is a draconian remedy resorted to only in plain and outright instances, and that the power is discretionary, exercised on the peculiar circumstances of each case with regard to the extent and impact of the defects. The appellant filed no submissions, appeared neither at case management nor at the hearing despite service, and made no application for extension of time under Rule 4. The court therefore treated the applicants' facts and grounds as conceded and acted on the unchallenged evidence.
Legal principles established
#- The timelines prescribed by the Court of Appeal Rules for lodging and serving appellate documents are mandatory and not merely directory, and failure to comply with them – particularly the preparation and timely filing of a proper Record of Appeal – is fatal to an appeal.
- A person affected by an appeal may, at any time, apply under Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 to strike out the notice or the appeal on the ground that an essential step in the proceedings has not been taken or has not been taken within the prescribed time.
- The power to strike out an appeal for non-compliance is discretionary, not automatic, and must be exercised judiciously having regard to the extent and impact of the defects and the peculiar circumstances of each case.
Court orders
#- 1.The appellant's appeal is struck out.
- 2.The application dated 19th November, 2025 is allowed with costs to the applicants.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Nairobi Environment and Land Court (ELC)
- Constitutional Petition No. E004 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 – the motion was brought under Rules 77, 79, 84, 85, 86 and 92; the striking-out power exercised is that conferred by Rule 86 (with the court's inherent jurisdiction under Rule 80 invoked by counsel)
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.
we find suficient basis laid for striking out the appeal, which we hereby do. The application dated 19th November, 2025 is allowed with costs to the applicants.
The timelines for filing appeals in this Court are mandatory and not merely directory.
failure to comply with these rules, particularly concerning preparation and timely filing of a proper Record of Appeal, is fatal to an appeal.
There must be strict compliance with the rules of the Court regarding the steps taken in lodging an appeal.
It is now a settled principle that striking out a pleading is a draconian act, which may only be resorted to in plain and outright instances.
while this Court has discretion in determining whether to strike out an appeal for noncompliance, this discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering the extent and impact of the defects.
from the court record it is quite clear that after timeously lodging her Notice of Appeal and Memorandum of Appeal, the appellant/respondent did not serve the applicants with the same and she did not also file a record of appeal within the 60 days prescribed.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment as provided omits the case caption: the parties are referred to throughout only as 'the applicants' and 'the appellant/respondent', no appeal or application number is stated, and no neutral citation appears; the case title, case number and neutral citation could not be captured from the text and are recorded descriptively.
Internal chronology contradiction: the 1st applicant deponed that 'the applicants only became aware of the intended appeal on 27th November, 2023 upon being served with a Notice of Change of Advocates. By that time, it was already one year and seven months after filing of the Notice of Appeal.' Yet the judgment elsewhere records that 'the ownership of the subject property, L.R. No. 1748, Kiima Kiu/Kalonzoni, was already conclusively determined in ELC Constitutional Petition No. E004 of 2021, where the Court upheld the 2nd Applicant's title on 25th September, 2025.' A Notice of Appeal against a decision of 25th September 2025 cannot have been filed more than a year and seven months before November 2023; at least one of these dates is erroneous on the face of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kaanzo v Inspector General of Police & 4 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E406 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1545 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 19th November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1545/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.