Kamau (Administrator of the Estate of Nduro Makau aka Nduku Makau (Deceased) v Parmar (Administrator of the Estate of Nagindas Ramji (Deceased))
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal struck out a land appeal filed nearly six months late, ending the case and leaving the 2024 High Court judgment intact.
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 Record of Appeal was instituted within the time prescribed by Rule 84(1)
- 2.Whether the record of appeal should be struck out under Rule 86 for failure to take essential steps within the prescribed time
Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the application to strike out
The application filed on 2nd December 2025, the same date the record was served, was within the thirty-day period prescribed by rule 86.
Rule 86 requires a striking-out application to be brought within thirty days of service of the Notice of Appeal or record of appeal. The record was served on 2nd December 2025 and the application filed the same day, so the requirement was met. The court applied Joyce Bochere Nyamweya on the mandatory nature of the proviso to rule 84.
Institution of the appeal outside rule 84(1)
The record of appeal was lodged approximately 179 days outside the sixty-day period, with no valid proviso exclusion, no letter bespeaking proceedings and no Certificate of Delay.
Rule 84(1) requires institution within sixty days of lodging the Notice of Appeal; the proviso excludes the proceedings-preparation period only where the appellant wrote and served a letter bespeaking proceedings within thirty days. The uncontroverted averment was that no such letter was served, and the record contained no Certificate of Delay, so no exclusion applied.
Failure to serve the record within rule 92(1)
Service of the record approximately eight months after lodging, without leave, was a further essential step not taken within the prescribed time, falling within rule 86.
Rule 92(1) requires service of the memorandum and record of appeal before or within seven days after lodging. The record was lodged on 19th March 2025 but served only on 2nd December 2025, and there was no evidence of any order extending time for service, so this independently justified striking out.
Legal principles established
#- An application to strike out a record of appeal under rule 86 must be brought within thirty days of service of the Notice of Appeal or record of appeal, failing which it is fatally defective.
- Failure to lodge the record of appeal within sixty days under rule 84(1), without a valid proviso exclusion, is an essential step not taken within the prescribed time and renders the record liable to be struck out under rule 86.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2025 is allowed
- 2.The record of appeal dated 21st February 2025 is struck out
- 3.Costs of the application to the respondent/applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- ELC No. 468 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 84(1), 84(2), 86 and 92(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Appellant's application for stay of execution dated 9th September 2025
Dismissed for non-appearance at plenary hearing under rule 58
Costs
Costs of the application to the respondent/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.
Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 2nd December, 2025 is found to be meritorious and is allowed. The record of appeal dated 21st February 2025 is hereby struck out with costs to the respondent/applicant.
Absent a valid exclusion under the proviso to rule 84(1), the sixty-day period expired on or about 21st September 2024, and the record was, therefore, lodged approximately 179 days outside the prescribed period.
Rule 86 requires such an application to be brought within thirty days of service of the Notice of Appeal or record of appeal, as the case may be.
This failure constitutes a further essential step not taken within the prescribed time and falls squarely within rule 86. There is no evidence before us of an order granting leave to extend time for service.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau (Administrator of the Estate of Nduro Makau aka Nduku Makau (Deceased) v Parmar (Administrator of the Estate of Nagindas Ramji (Deceased))", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application E204 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1884/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.