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 at Mombasa (unnumbered in judgment)· [2024] KECA 643 (KLR)

Ladha & another v Ladha) & 3 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E020 of 2023) [2024] KECA 643 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
7 June 2024
1,740 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an appeal because the appellants served their appeal record months late without fixing the problem first.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, who had succeeded before the High Court in an adverse possession claim over Plot No. Mombasa/Block XII/155, moved the Court of Appeal at Mombasa under rules 84 and 90 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 to strike out the respondents' Notice of appeal filed on 18th June 2021 and Record of appeal filed on 20th February 2023, on the ground that the record was served on 23rd June 2023, long after the seven-day period prescribed by rule 90. The respondents attributed the delay to a restructuring of their counsel's firm and misplaced files, and sought enlargement of time under rule 4 so the appeal could be deemed properly on file. The Court first confirmed its own competence threshold: the motion, filed 19 days after service of the record, fell within the 30-day window under rule 84. It then applied its precedents, holding that the power to strike out is discretionary but that rule 92(1) is mandatory, and that where a record of appeal is served out of time without remedial steps the record must be struck out. Distinguishing the absence of flagrant or deliberate default, the Court nonetheless found a delay of two to three months and no remedial steps before the motion. It allowed the application, struck out both the Notice and Record of appeal with costs to the applicants, thereby ending the appeal against the adverse possession judgment.

Key legal issues

#
01

Timeliness of the striking-out application

Holding

The application was competent as it was filed 19 days after service of the record, within the 30-day window.

Reasoning

Rule 84 requires a striking-out application to be brought within 30 days of service of the notice or record of appeal. The record was served on 23rd June 2023 and the motion dated 11th July 2023, being filed 19 days later, fell within the prescribed period, so the threshold competency objection was overcome.

p. 3
02

Consequence of late service of the Record of appeal

Holding

The record was served approximately three months late in breach of rule 90, and without remedial steps prior to the motion, the Notice and Record of appeal were struck out.

Reasoning

Rule 90 mandatorily requires service of the record of appeal within seven days of lodging. The appellants admitted late service attributed to counsel's firm restructuring. Following Mukenya Ndunda v Crater Automobiles, the breach was not flagrant but neither were remedial steps taken, and the Court applied Mulama v EACC, striking out the record.

Legal principles established

#
  • An appeal record served outside the seven-day period prescribed by rule 90 is liable to be struck out where the delay is not remedied before a striking-out motion is brought
  • The power to strike out an appeal is discretionary and exercised on the circumstances of each case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Record of appeal dated 9th February 2023 and filed on 20th February 2023 is struck out
  2. 2.The Notice of appeal dated 17th June 2021 and filed on 18th June 2021 is struck out
  3. 3.Costs of the application to the applicants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2010rules 84, 90
  • Court of Appeal Rules, 2022rules 86, 92(1), 4
  • Appellate Jurisdiction Actsections 3, 3A, 3B

Cases cited (3)

  • Standard Ltd & another v Onchieku
    (Civil Application 134 of 2019) [2023] KECA 1275 (KLR)
  • Mukenya Ndunda v Crater Automobiles Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Mulama v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission
    (Civil Application E186 of 2021) [2023] KECA 582 (KLR)
On appeal from
High Court of Kenya
Mombasa adverse possession suit (number not stated)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3, 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and rules 84 and 90 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 (now rules 86 and 92(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ladha & another v Ladha) & 3 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E020 of 2023) [2024] KECA 643 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Application at Mombasa (unnumbered in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/643/eng@2024-06-07

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