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 AppealDismissedMotion on Notice dated 3rd May, 2018 (Court of Appeal, election petition application)· [2018] KECA 587 (KLR)

David Kipsang Keter v Johana Kipyegon Ngeno & 2 others [2018] KECA 587 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
25 May 2018
2,082 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal confirmed election appeal deadlines are strict: filing late, or in the wrong registry, ends the appeal outright.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a single-judge application in the Court of Appeal by David Kipsang Keter, the unsuccessful petitioner in Election Petition No. 2 of 2017 before the High Court at Narok, whose petition against the election of Johana Kipyegon Ngeno as MP for Emurua Dikirr was dismissed on 7th February 2018. By a motion dated 3rd May 2018 under rules 4(2)(3) and 5 of the Court of Appeal (Election Petition) Rules 2017 and Article 159 of the Constitution, the applicant sought leave to file and serve the record of appeal out of time. Kantai JA held that a notice of appeal was filed on 22nd February 2018, well outside the mandatory 7-day period in rule 6(2), and that it was lodged in the High Court registry at Narok rather than the registry of the Court of Appeal, contrary to the rules. The court held that the ordinary extension-of-time principles (Fakir Mohammed, as cited in Wachiuri Wahome) do not apply to election matters, which are governed by a special jurisdiction under the Constitution, the Elections Act and the 2017 Rules. Following Supreme Court authority in Kidero, Mary Wambui Munene and Outa, the court reaffirmed that Section 85A of the Elections Act's 30-day timeline for filing election appeals is neither negotiable nor extendable by any court. The court also admonished counsel for citing a non-existent rule 14(2) of the 2017 Rules. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Timeliness of the notice of appeal

Holding

The notice of appeal filed on 22nd February 2018 was out of time, judgment having been delivered on 7th February 2018; rule 6(2) mandatorily requires filing within 7 days

Reasoning

The court held that the 7-day period in rule 6(2) is mandatory. A notice filed 15 days after judgment cannot initiate a competent appeal, and the applicant's submission that the notice was filed on time was wrong. Counsel for the 1st respondent's submission on lateness was upheld.

p. 3
02

Place of filing the notice of appeal

Holding

The notice was filed at the High Court at Narok instead of the registry of the Court of Appeal as required by the rules, so it did not comply with rule 6

Reasoning

Rule 2 defines 'registry' as the registry of the Court of Appeal including a sub-registry. The document lodged with the Deputy Registrar of the High Court at Narok did not conform with rule 6, compounding the defect of lateness.

p. 4
03

Applicability of ordinary extension-of-time principles and discretion under Article 159(2)(d)

Holding

The ordinary Fakir Mohammed principles do not apply to election matters; no discretion could be exercised in the applicant's favour given the mandatory statutory timelines

Reasoning

The court distinguished election disputes as a special jurisdiction created by the Constitution, the Elections Act and the 2017 Election Petition Rules. The Supreme Court authorities establish that Section 85A timelines are neither negotiable nor extendable, and that ordinary procedural rules are supplementary only.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A notice of appeal in an election petition appeal must be filed in the Court of Appeal registry within 7 days of the decision appealed against; filing in the High Court registry is non-compliant
  • Timelines set by the Constitution and the Elections Act for election appeals cannot be extended by the court
  • Election matters are governed by a special jurisdiction; the ordinary extension-of-time principles do not apply

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The motion dated 3rd May, 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the motion awarded to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159; Article 159(2)(d)
  • Elections ActSection 85A
  • Court of Appeal (Election Petition) Rules 2017rule 4(2)(3); rule 5; rule 2; rule 6; rule 6(2); rule 84
  • Court of Appeal Rules 2010rule 84; rule 35 of the Election Petition Rules (as referred)
  • Election Petition Rulesrule 35

Cases cited (7)

  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Fakir Mohammed v Joseph Mugambi and 2 Others
    Civil Application No. 332 of 2014 (ur)
  • Wachiuri Wahome v Festus Gatheru Wahome and 6 Others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Evans Odhiambo Kidero and 4 others v Ferdinand Ndung'u Waititu and 4 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Ferdinand Ndung'u Waititu v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 8 others
    Civil Appeal No. 137 of 2013
  • Mary Wambui Munene v Peter Gichuki Kingara and 2 Others
    Supreme Court Petition No. 7 of 2014
  • Fredrick Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okelo and 4 Others
    Supreme Court Petition No. 10 of 2014
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya at Narok
Election Petition No. 2 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Court of Appeal (Election Petition) Rules 2017, rule 4(2)(3) and rule 5; Article 159 of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "David Kipsang Keter v Johana Kipyegon Ngeno & 2 others [2018] KECA 587 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Motion on Notice dated 3rd May, 2018 (Court of Appeal, election petition application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/587/eng@2018-05-25

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