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 AppealDismissedNotice of Motion dated 20th September 2019 (Civil Appeal record, Mombasa)

Ezekiel Nyangoya Okemwa v Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute

Court of Appeal of Kenya
17 December 2021
1,597 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 refused to strike out an appeal, confirming the official Certificate of Delay—not a typing pool Dispatch Book—controls appeal timelines.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Mombasa (Gatembu Kairu, Nyamweya and Lesiit, JJ.A) on a Notice of Motion dated 20th September 2019 by Dr. Ezekiel Nyangoya Okemwa seeking to strike out the Record of Appeal of Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute, filed on 16th August 2019 and served on 22nd August 2019. The applicant argued that the Notice of Appeal was lodged in July 2016 and that a typing Dispatch Book at the Employment and Labour Relations Court, Mombasa showed proceedings were typed by October 2016, so the three-year delay in lodging the Record was inordinate and unexplained. The respondent attributed the delay to prior advocates and registry bureaucracy, and relied on the registrar's Certificate of Delay of 25th July 2019. The Court first held the application competent, as it was lodged on 20th September 2019, within the thirty days from service prescribed by the proviso to Rule 84. On the merits, the Court applied Rule 82: the proviso excludes time certified by the registrar as required for preparation and delivery of proceedings, so time ran afresh from the Certificate of Delay and the sixty-day deadline expired on 19th September 2019; the Record of Appeal filed on 16th August 2019 was therefore within time. The Court declined to rely on the uncertified and illegible Dispatch Book, holding that Rule 82 recognizes only the application for proceedings and the registrar's certificate as relevant documents. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Competency of the striking-out application under Rule 84

Holding

The application, lodged on 20th September 2019, was within 30 days of service of the Record of Appeal on 22nd August 2019 and was therefore competent.

Reasoning

Rule 84 permits any person affected by an appeal to apply to strike out the notice of appeal or the appeal where no appeal lies or an essential step was not taken within the prescribed time. However, the proviso bars such applications brought after thirty days from service of the notice of appeal or record of appeal. Since service was effected on 22nd August 2019 and the application was lodged on 20th September 2019, within the thirtieth day (21st September 2019), it was properly before the Court.

p. 2
02

Whether the Record of Appeal was filed within time under Rule 82

Holding

The Record of Appeal filed on 16th August 2019 was within time, because time was excluded between the application for proceedings and the Certificate of Delay, and ran afresh from the date of the certificate.

Reasoning

Rule 82 fixes sixty days from lodgement of the Notice of Appeal, subject to the proviso excluding time certified by the registrar as required for preparation and delivery of proceedings. The Certificate of Delay showed the application for proceedings was made within thirty days of the decision, and time ran afresh from the certificate date, expiring on 19th September 2019. The Record of Appeal filed on 16th August 2019 was thus within time, notwithstanding the Notice of Appeal of 2016.

p. 3
03

Evidential weight of the typing pool Dispatch Book versus the Certificate of Delay

Holding

The uncertified, illegible Dispatch Book is irrelevant for computing time under Rule 82; the Certificate of Delay governs.

Reasoning

The applicant relied on the Employment and Labour Relations Court's typing Dispatch Book to show proceedings were typed as early as 2016. The Court held the copy was uncertified, so its source and author could not be verified; the entries were crossed over and unclear; and, decisively, Rule 82 recognizes only the application for proceedings and the registrar's certificate as relevant documents for computing or excluding time. The Dispatch Book of a typing pool is not a relevant document for purposes of Rule 82.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • An application to strike out an appeal under Rule 84 must be brought within thirty days of the date of service of the notice of appeal or record of appeal.
  • Under Rule 82, the documents relevant to computing or excluding time for instituting an appeal are the application for a copy of the proceedings and the registrar's certificate; a typing pool's Dispatch Book is not such a document.
  • Time certified by the registrar as required for preparation and delivery of proceedings is excluded from the 60-day timeline for lodging an appeal, and time runs afresh from the date of the Certificate of Delay.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 20th September 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application to strike out an appeal)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ezekiel Nyangoya Okemwa v Kenya Marine & Fisheries Research Institute", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 20th September 2019 (Civil Appeal record, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/316/eng@2021-12-17

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