Syrup Distributors Ltd v Loki Developers Ltd (Civil Appeal 104 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1589 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal dismissed Syrup Distributors' second appeal, confirming eviction orders and clarifying that second appeals only address points of law, not facts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant's memorandum of appeal is competent, being narrative and argumentative and based on matters of fact rather than law
- 2.Whether the trial magistrate's court had jurisdiction to hear the respondent's suit and application for injunction and eviction
- 3.What is the legal effect of the alleged lack of service of summons to enter appearance on the appellant
- 4.Whether there are grounds to interfere with the exercise of discretion by the High Court judge in the two findings of law properly before the Court
Key legal issues
#Scope of a second appeal
The Court is confined to questions of law and will not disturb concurrent findings of fact; grounds resting on the date of encroachment, missing pages of the ruling, and limitation were matters of fact addressed by both courts below.
The Court restated the settled principle that on a second appeal it must resist the temptation of delving into matters of fact, citing Kenya Breweries Ltd v Godfrey Odoyo and Stephen Muriungi v Republic. The date of encroachment was the subject of concurrent findings by the trial court and the High Court, and the limitation issue had been the subject of an earlier High Court preliminary objection and ruling which was not appealed. The missing-pages ground was raised for the first time on second appeal and the appellant, having the duty to compile a complete record, could not rely on its own lapses.
Jurisdiction of the magistrate's court over the trespass claim
The trial court had jurisdiction because the suit was a simple common law claim for trespass in which ownership of the suit property was not contested; there was no material before the Court to controvert the High Court's finding.
The jurisdiction of the trial court was determined by the nature of the respondent's suit and the prayers sought. The High Court, agreeing with the trial magistrate's ruling on a preliminary objection, found the dispute was a simple trespass claim determinable by a subordinate court. The appellant did not avail the preliminary objection, the ruling thereon, or evidence of the value of the property to support its pecuniary jurisdiction argument. In any event, subsequent legal developments — the Environment and Land Court Act and the Magistrates' Courts Act — now empower appointed magistrates to hear land-related claims within pecuniary limits, rendering the jurisdictional issue moot.
Legal effect of lack of service of summons to enter appearance
Failure to serve summons does not render proceedings a nullity where the defendant was aware of the suit and actively participated; the consequences contended for by the appellant are not provided for in Order 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Court analysed the purpose of a summons, drawing on its definition in Black's Law Dictionary and Order 5 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules: to notify the defendant and secure appearance. The appellant was aware of the suit, as shown by its active participation in defending the application before the trial court. The Court found no illegality in the High Court's reasoning, which was supported by the Mafuta Kenya Pipeline case, and noted that the drastic consequences of nullity and abatement proposed by the appellant are not found in Order 5 of the Rules.
Competency of the memorandum of appeal and matters raised for the first time on second appeal
Grounds of appeal resting on fact, and reliance on a later ELC judgment not pleaded below and involving a third party, were not properly before the Court.
The respondent objected that the grounds of appeal were narrative and argumentative, contrary to Rule 86(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, and unfit for a second appeal because they were based on fact. The Court additionally held that the appellant's submissions on a judgment of the Environment and Land Court delivered in January 2023, after the High Court judgment and involving a third party not before the Court, could not be determined in the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- On a second appeal, the Court of Appeal confines itself to matters of law and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact of the two courts below.
- Issues of fact not raised at the earliest opportunity cannot be raised for the first time on a second appeal, and a party responsible for an incomplete record cannot rely on its own lapses as a ground of appeal.
- The purpose of service of summons is to notify a defendant and secure its appearance; where the defendant was aware of the suit and actively participated, failure of service does not render the proceedings a nullity.
- A subordinate court has jurisdiction to determine a simple common law claim for trespass where ownership of the suit property is not in dispute.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Nairobi High Court Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2008
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Second appeal to the Court of Appeal under the Court of Appeal's appellate jurisdiction (Court of Appeal Rules); the judgment does not cite a specific constitutional provision
Relief refused
#The appellant's prayer to quash and set aside the High Court judgment and the trial court's ruling of 19th July 2006 (including the eviction and demolition orders)
The appeal raised no grounds of law warranting interference; the missing-pages complaint was raised for the first time on second appeal and the appellant bore responsibility for the incomplete record; the trial court had jurisdiction over a trespass claim; lack of service of summons did not nullify proceedings where the appellant participated and suffered no prejudice
Costs
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
This Court, on second appeal, confines itself to matters of law unless it is shown that the two courts below considered matters they should not have considered or failed to consider matters they should have considered or looking at the entire decision, it is perverse.
the issue of the missing pages of the ruling by the trial Court was never raised in the High Court and quite apart from being an issue of fact, is incompetently being raised for the first time on a second appeal.
Therefore, the purpose of a summons is to notify and ensure appearance of a defendant in Court in a suit filed against him or her.
We accordingly find that this appeal is not merited, and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives inconsistent dates for the trial court's ruling: the opening paragraph states it was delivered on 19th July 2006, while grounds of appeal in the memorandum refer to a "Ruling of the Hon. E. C. Cherono Senior Resident Magistrate Delivered on 9th July 2006" and to "an Order for Eviction of the Appellant made on 9th July 2006".
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Syrup Distributors Ltd v Loki Developers Ltd (Civil Appeal 104 of 2019) [2025] KECA 1589 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (appeal from Nairobi High Court Civil Appeal No. 166 of 2008). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1589/eng@2025-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.