Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealStruck OutCivil Appeal (Application) No. 54 of 2015

Chairman Board of Governors Ng’iya Girls High School v Meshack Ochieng’ t/a Mecko Enterprises & 4 others [2016] KECA 813 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
5 February 2016
549 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's Court of Appeal confirmed it will strike out any appeal challenge filed more than 30 days after service, with no exceptions for delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Visram, Mwilu and Azangalala, JJ.A) on an application to strike out the record of appeal in Civil Appeal (Application) No. 54 of 2015, an appeal brought against a ruling of the High Court (J. Kamau, J) dated 19th December 2014 in H.C. Misc. Civil Appl. No. 445 of 2013. The respondent Meshack Ochieng' moved to strike out the record of appeal. The court examined Rule 84 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal, whose proviso, introduced by Legal Notice No. 152 of 2002 with effect from 4th July 2002, bars any strike-out application brought more than thirty days after service of the notice of appeal or record of appeal. The court held that this 30-day period is framed in mandatory terms, so an application filed outside it is incompetent and must be struck out on that basis alone, citing Charles Murithi Muthuri vs Esther Karambu (Nyeri C.A. No. 341 of 2002). On the facts, the record of appeal was served on the applicant on 10th March 2015 and the motion was filed on 25th August 2015, roughly five months later; the applicant did not dispute these dates, offering only an unexplained assertion that time did not run during a 'consenting period'. The court agreed with the respondent's counsel that the application was incompetent, struck out the record of appeal, and awarded costs to the respondent. The ruling does not disturb the High Court's decision, which remains unaddressed pending the now-struck-out appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application to strike out the record of appeal, filed more than thirty days after service of the record, was competent under the proviso to Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the proviso to Rule 84 imposing a 30-day limit on strike-out applications is mandatory

Holding

Yes. The proviso is mandatory, and an application to strike out filed beyond thirty days from service of the notice or record of appeal is incompetent and must be struck out.

Reasoning

The court read the proviso to Rule 84, introduced by Legal Notice No. 152 of 2002 with effect from 4th July 2002, as framed in mandatory terms. It found as undisputed that the record of appeal was served on 10th March 2015 and the motion was filed on 25th August 2015, some five months later. The applicant's contention that time did not run during a 'consenting period' was found unclear and insufficient to displace the mandatory time limit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The 30-day period in the proviso to Rule 84 for bringing an application to strike out a notice of appeal or record of appeal is mandatory; an application filed outside it is incompetent and must be struck out.
  • A late application to strike out must be struck out on that basis alone.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The motion to strike out the record of appeal is allowed and the record of appeal is struck out as incompetent
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the respondent

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority
Philomena Mbete Mwilu
P. M. MwiluJA
Currently serving
majority
majority
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
H.C. Misc. Civil Appl. No. 445 of 2013
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 84 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal

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.

The 30-day time period, stipulated in the proviso to the above rule, is framed in mandatory terms.
p. 2Mandatory nature of the 30-day limitation in the proviso to Rule 84
The motion was, therefore, filed out of time, and we agree with Mr. Otieno, learned counsel for the respondent, that the same is incompetent and must be struck out, which we hereby do, with costs to the respondent.
p. 2Disposition - strike-out with costs

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chairman Board of Governors Ng’iya Girls High School v Meshack Ochieng’ t/a Mecko Enterprises & 4 others [2016] KECA 813 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Appeal (Application) No. 54 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/813/eng@2016-02-05

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