Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedNotice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 (Civil Appeal application)

Kenya Meat Commission v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Civil Appeal (Application) E425 of 2025) [2026] KECA 412 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
27 February 2026
JMJamila Mohammed
597 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya Meat Commission lost its appeal record because it couldn't prove it served a key letter on the union — proof of service is now non-negotiable at the Court of Appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, delivered by Jamila Mohammed, JA, on 27th February 2026, on a Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 brought by Kenya Meat Commission under Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. The applicant sought extension of time to file and serve a Record of Appeal against a judgment of the Employment and Labour Relations Court delivered on 23rd January 2025, and sought to have its Record of Appeal filed on 4th June 2025 deemed properly filed. Kenya Union of Commercial Foods and Allied Workers opposed. The court examined Rule 84(1), which requires an appeal to be instituted within sixty days of the Notice of Appeal, with exclusion only where proceedings were requested in writing within thirty days and the letter served on the respondent. Although a bespeaking letter dated 7th February 2025 was written, there was no affidavit of service or acknowledgment proving service on respondent's counsel. Relying on its prior decisions in Musambayi v Katula and Marwa v Chacha, and the Supreme Court's Salat decision, the court held that service of the bespeaking letter is mandatory, that time runs uninterrupted absent proof of service, and that the omission is substantive and not curable under Article 159(2)(d). The motion was dismissed, the Record of Appeal struck out, and costs awarded to the respondent.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the applicant satisfied the threshold for extension of time under Rule 4 in light of the requirement that a letter bespeaking proceedings be served on the respondent to exclude time under Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant met the Rule 4 threshold for extension of time given non-service of the letter bespeaking proceedings

Holding

The application fails; without proof of service of the bespeaking letter, time under Rule 84 runs uninterrupted and the Record of Appeal filed 4th June 2025 was out of time.

Reasoning

Rule 84(1) requires an appeal to be instituted within sixty days of the Notice of Appeal, with time excluded only where proceedings were requested in writing within thirty days and the letter served on the respondent. Although a letter dated 7th February 2025 was written, no affidavit of service or acknowledgment proved service on respondent's counsel. Following binding precedent, extension of time is an equitable remedy for a deserving party who has complied with procedural requirements; the defect is substantive, not curable under Article 159(2)(d).

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Service of the letter bespeaking proceedings on the respondent is mandatory; exclusion of time under Rule 84 is available only upon proof of such service.
  • Where service of the letter bespeaking proceedings is not demonstrated, time runs uninterrupted and a certificate of delay cannot be relied upon.
  • Omission to serve the letter bespeaking proceedings is a substantive defect not curable under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.The Record of Appeal filed on 4th June 2025 is struck out
  3. 3.The respondent shall have the costs of the application

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JM
majority

Wrote the judgment

On appeal from
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act and Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Relief refused

#

Extension of time to file and serve the Record of Appeal and deeming of the Record of Appeal filed 4th June 2025 as duly filed and served

Failure to prove service of the letter bespeaking proceedings disentitled the applicant from exclusion of time under Rule 84, rendering the record out of time

p. 2

Costs

The respondent shall have the costs of this application.

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.

Service of the letter bespeaking proceedings upon the respondent is mandatory. The benefit of exclusion of time is only available where there is proof of such service.
p. 2Mandatory service of bespeaking letter
This Court has consistently held that failure to serve the letter bespeaking proceedings disentitles an applicant from relying on a certificate of delay.
p. 2Certificate of delay
The Supreme Court in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 Others [2014] eKLR afirmed that extension of time is not a right but an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who has complied with procedural requirements.
p. 2Extension of time as equitable remedy
Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 is hereby dismissed. The Record of Appeal filed on 4th June 2025 is struck out.
p. 2Final orders
The respondent shall have the costs of this application.
p. 2Costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment records only a single Judge of Appeal delivering it, which is unusual for the Court of Appeal; coram shows only 'JAMILA MOHAMMED, JUDGE OF APPEAL'.

minor

Typographical errors in the judgment text ('afirmed', 'afidavit').

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Meat Commission v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers (Civil Appeal (Application) E425 of 2025) [2026] KECA 412 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 (Civil Appeal application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/412/eng@2026-02-27

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