Cooperative Bank of Kenya v Otiyo & 6 others (Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8053 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a defective appeal record but kept the appeal itself alive, giving the appellant 21 days to refile properly.
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 application dated 7th March, 2025 is merited, namely whether the Record of Appeal and Supplementary Record of Appeal ought to be struck out for want of a decree and for illegibility, whether the deposited title deed should be released to the Applicants, and whether the Applicants should be at liberty to execute the decree
Key legal issues
#Whether absence of a certified copy of the decree from the Record of Appeal and Supplementary Record of Appeal renders the appeal incompetent and liable to be struck out
The absence of the decree renders the records defective and they were struck out, but it does not compel striking out the appeal itself; the Memorandum of Appeal survives and a fresh complete record must be filed
Order 42 Rule 13(4) requires the judge to be satisfied that the memorandum, pleadings and the judgment, order or decree appealed from are on record before allowing an appeal to go to hearing. Paragraph (f) uses 'or', so a judgment suffices where no decree is annexed. Unlike Court of Appeal rules, the Civil Procedure Rules do not mandate striking out an appeal for want of a decree; the record, not the appeal, is what falls away.
Whether the illegibility of certain pages of the Record of Appeal justified striking out the appeal
The court accepted that legible copies had been supplied in the record, and treated the complaint as remediable rather than fatal
The Appellant's advocate explained that illegibility resulted from reprinting and scanning and that substitute legible copies had been filed at specific pages. The court did not treat illegibility as incurable, instead directing that the fresh record to be filed contain clear or legible documents within 21 days, failing which the entire appeal stands dismissed.
Whether the deposited title deed should be released to the Applicants for execution
Refused; such release would only be appropriate had the appeal been dismissed, which it was not
The title deed was deposited pursuant to a consent and consent order to facilitate the appeal. Since the court declined to strike out the appeal and left the Memorandum of Appeal intact, releasing the title for execution would contradict the existing regime and the pending appeal.
Legal principles established
#- Where a judgment is contained in a record of appeal under Order 42 Rule 13(4)(f) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the conjunction 'or' means a decree need not also be included; the absence of a decree is a technicality that does not render the appeal incurably defective
- Failure to include compulsory documents in a record of appeal renders the record defective, but the sanction is striking out the record, not the appeal, and the court may not set the appeal down for hearing until the defect is cured
- Courts are obliged under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution to determine matters on their substantive merits rather than on procedural technicalities
Court orders
#- 1.Both the Record of Appeal and Supplementary Record of Appeal are struck out with costs to the Respondents/the Applicant and other parties who took part other than the Appellant
- 2.The costs to the Respondents on this account are capped at KShs 30,000/= to each Respondent who participated in the instant application
- 3.The Appellant shall file and serve a fresh and complete record of appeal, with clear or legible documents, within 21 days hereof and in default, the entire Appeal shall stand dismissed with costs to the Respondents, without further reference or application to the court
- 4.The appeal shall, assuming compliance, be mentioned for further directions on 21st January 2026
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Homa Bay
- Homabay CM ELC No. E036 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act over appeals from magistrates' courts (Section 79G Civil Procedure Act regime invoked)
Relief refused
#Release of the title deed in respect of Kanyada/Kotieno Katuma "B"/286 deposited in court, and liberty to execute the decree issued on 6th February, 2024
Granting those orders would be contrary to the orders already issued since it would only be applicable if the appeal had been dismissed, which is not the case; the appeal was not struck out
Striking out of the entire Appeal
Only the Record of Appeal and Supplementary Record of Appeal were struck out; the Memorandum of Appeal remains intact
Costs
Costs of the application to the Respondents/the Applicant and other parties who took part other than the Appellant, capped at KShs 30,000/= to each Respondent who participated in the instant application; the default in paragraph (c) would entail dismissal of the entire appeal with costs to the Respondents.
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.
Thus, where a judgment is contained in a record of appeal there is no need for a decree.
The efiect of failure to include the compulsory documents renders the Record of Appeal incurably defective.
Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution obligates courts to determine matters on substantive bases rather than mere technicalities which do not go to the substance of the same.
That both the Record of Appeal and Supplementary Record of Appeal are hereby struck out with costs to the Respondents/ the Applicant and other parties who took part other than the Appellant.
The costs to the Respondents on this account are capped at KShs 30,000/= to each Respondent who participated in the instant application.
That the Appellant shall file and serve a fresh and complete record of appeal, with clear or legible documents, within 21 days hereof and in default, the entire Appeal shall stand dismissed with costs to the Respondents, without further reference or application to the court.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the present appeal/application before the court is never stated in the judgment
The judgment refers to the parties inconsistently as Respondents in the application and Applicants, and in places the Appellant's role labels are conflated (e.g. counsel for the '1st to 4th Respondents' submissions against the Appellant)
The judgment appears to treat the Appellant as the 'Respondent' to the application while the Applicants are the 1st-4th/6th-7th parties, but the caption itself is not reproduced, making exact party designations uncertain
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cooperative Bank of Kenya v Otiyo & 6 others (Environment and Land Appeal E039 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 8053 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Case number not stated in the judgment (application dated 7th March, 2025; arise from appeal against judgment in Homabay CM ELC No. E036 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8053/eng@2025-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.