Royal Sian Limited v Cove Investments Limited & 5 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an appeal entirely because the appellant missed filing and service deadlines, so Cove Investments' land victory now stands.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the record of appeal was filed and served within the timelines set by the Court of Appeal Rules
It was not; the 1st respondent did not file or serve the record of appeal within time, and the 11th December 2024 letter requesting proceedings was lodged outside the 30-day window and not copied to the applicant, so time did not stop running.
Rule 84(2) requires a letter requesting proceedings to be lodged within 30 days of the impugned decision and copied to the other party. The ruling was delivered in October 2024; the respondent's own letter of 11th December 2024 was outside that period and was never copied to the applicant. Consequently time never stopped running, the record and supplementary record were out of time, and the appeal was improperly before the Court.
Whether the notices of appeal were served within time
Neither notice was validly served: the 2nd respondent's notice was sent to a wrong email address that did not belong to the applicant, and the 1st respondent's notice was not served at all.
The process server's affidavit deponed service to one email address, but the annexed attachment showed the notice was sent to a different, admittedly wrong address. The applicant denied that the alternative email address belonged to it, and there was nothing to controvert that denial. Service to a wrong address is no service, and both notices of appeal therefore failed the service requirements of the Rules.
Whether the Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to salvage the defective appeals
It should not; the defects were jurisdictional, and the Rules are enacted to facilitate the proper administration of justice.
While courts possess inherent jurisdiction to regulate their process in the interests of justice, that reserve of powers is exercised only where it is just and equitable. Here the respondents failed to comply with the fundamental requirements of filing and serving the notice and record of appeal, which go to the Court's jurisdiction, and no discretionary rescue was warranted.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal is properly invoked only by filing and serving a notice of appeal in accordance with the Rules.
- A letter requesting typed proceedings must be lodged within 30 days of the impugned decision and copied to the other party; time does not stop running where this is not done.
- A supplementary record of appeal cannot cure a record of appeal that was never filed and served within the prescribed timelines.
Court orders
#- 1.The consolidated applications (E189 of 2024, E002 of 2025 and E007 of 2025) are allowed
- 2.The record and memorandum of appeal and the two notices of appeal are struck out
- 3.The orders of stay granted in Civil Application No 103 of 2024 stand vacated
- 4.The applicant is awarded the costs of the 3 consolidated applications
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court, Nakuru
- Petition No 360 of 2017 (ruling by Odeny, J. dated 15th October 2024)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court and the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010/2022 (Rules 79, 82, 84(2), 86, 94) governing striking out of appeals not filed or served in accordance with the Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Royal Sian Limited v Cove Investments Limited & 5 others", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Applications Nos E189 of 2024, E002 of 2025 and E007 of 2025 (consolidated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1090/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.