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 AppealPartially AllowedCivil Application No. 44 of 2017 (UR 34 of 2017)· [2017] KECA 209 (KLR)

Kenya Union Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Keroche Industries Limited & 3 others [2017] KECA 209 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
6 October 2017
1,572 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an appeal notice filed late without leave, confirming the 14-day appeal deadline is fatal if missed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Nambuye, Musinga and Ouko, JJA) on an unopposed Notice of Motion dated 21 February 2017 by the Kenya Union Commercial, Food and Allied Workers, seeking leave to strike out a notice of appeal lodged on 24 December 2012 against a judgment of the Industrial Court (Nzioki wa Makau, J.) of 11 November 2012 awarding the applicant Kshs 2,200,000. The court accepted proof of service and proceeded exparte. It held that under rule 75(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules the respondents were obliged to lodge the notice of appeal within fourteen days of the judgment; the notice was filed almost one month late and without leave, rendering it incompetent, null and void ab initio, citing MacFoy v United African Co. Ltd. The court distinguished non-compliance with rule 82 (applying for typed proceedings six days late), which it regarded as a mere procedural technicality curable under Article 159 of the Constitution, from breach of rule 75, which is the foundation stone of the appellate process and therefore fatal. The court also censured the respondents for initiating the appeal apparently only to inconvenience the victorious party, citing Sofitra Limited v Alice O. Alukwe. The application was allowed: the notice of appeal was struck out, and the applicant was awarded costs of the application. Prayers for release of security deposited for stay and leave to execute fell outside the court's mandate and were not determined. The decision below was not disturbed; this ruling concerned only the competency of the intended appeal.

Key legal issues

#
01

Effect of failure to lodge a notice of appeal within 14 days

Holding

The notice of appeal filed out of time and without leave is incompetent, null and void ab initio and liable to be struck out

Reasoning

Rule 75(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules requires a notice of appeal to be lodged within fourteen days of the decision appealed against. The respondents lodged their notice almost one month after the expiry of that period and without leave. Non-compliance with rule 75 is a core requirement, the foundation stone of the appellate process, and is fatal; it is not a mere procedural technicality curable under Article 159, unlike non-compliance with rule 82.

p. 3
02

Whether non-compliance with rule 82 (applying for typed proceedings within 30 days) vitiates an appeal

Holding

Non-compliance with rule 82 may be excused as a mere procedural technicality curable under Article 159 or by the court's inherent power

Reasoning

The respondents applied for typed proceedings six days after the expiry of the 30-day period in rule 82. The court distinguished this from breach of rule 75, holding that rule 82 non-compliance may be treated as a mere procedural technicality curable under Article 159 of the Constitution or excusable in the exercise of the court's inherent power, whereas rule 75 non-compliance is fatal.

p. 3
03

Abuse of the appellate process

Holding

The appellate process exists solely for the vindication of the rights of serious litigants, and a notice of appeal initiated merely to inconvenience the successful party may be struck out

Reasoning

The court expressed displeasure at the respondents' conduct, finding the purported appellate process was apparently initiated solely to inconvenience and cause hardship to the victorious party. It reminded litigants that the appellate process exists solely for serious litigants and relieved the parties of the pendency of the process.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A notice of appeal lodged outside the 14-day period prescribed by rule 75(1) and (2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, without leave, is incompetent, null and void ab initio; non-compliance with rule 75 is fatal to the appellate process and cannot be cured under Article 159 of the Constitution, unlike non-compliance with rule 82.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The purported notice of appeal dated and lodged on the 24th day of December, 2012 out of time and without leave of court is struck out
  2. 2.The applicant is awarded costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(a) and (b); Article 159
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsections 3 and 3A
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 75(1) and (2)
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrule 82
  • Court of Appeal Rulesrules 84 and 97 (referred to within rule 75 text)

Cases cited (2)

  • MacFoy versus United African Co. Ltd
    [1961] 3 ALLER 1169
  • Sofitra Limited & Another versus Alice O. Alukwe & 2 Others
    [2016] eKLR
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Industrial Court, now Employment and Labour Relations Court)
Industrial Cause No. 772 of 2010
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution; sections 3 and 3A of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (Cap 9)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Union Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Keroche Industries Limited & 3 others [2017] KECA 209 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Application No. 44 of 2017 (UR 34 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/209/eng@2017-10-06

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