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 AppealDismissedNot stated in judgment· [2026] KECA 655 (KLR)

John Wanjohi Mathinji v Joseph King'ori Gatungu

Court of Appeal of Kenya
25 March 2026
1,514 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 filed late, confirming that procedural mistakes should not end a case unless they cause real injustice.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application by notice of motion dated 14th January 2025 under rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, in which the applicant, Joseph King'ori Gatungu, sought striking out of the respondent's record of appeal. He argued that the appeal was lodged on the e-filing portal on 10th December 2024, outside the sixty days prescribed by rule 84(1), that the letter bespeaking certified copies of the High Court proceedings and judgment was never served on him, and that the respondent was therefore not entitled to rely on the certificate of delay issued on 9th December 2024 or on the proviso to rule 84(1). The respondent relied on a replying affidavit and an affidavit of service by John M. Chere showing service of the letter on the applicant's advocates on 9th November 2023. The applicant's counsel contended that the affidavit of service ought to have been filed in the High Court with the letter, and relied on Partel v Maccu Motors Ltd; the respondent relied on Sub-County Co-operative Officer, Turbo & Soy v Raiplywoods (K) Ltd. The court held that there is no requirement to file proof of service of the letter, which is addressed to the registrar, and that there was no evidence on oath contradicting the process server's statement. Accepting that service occurred, and applying the Salat principle that striking out is a draconian last resort, the court found striking out the appeal harsh and unjust. The application was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the appeal. The decision was delivered at Nyeri on 25th March 2026 by S. ole Kantai, J. Lesiit and Ali-Aroni, JJA.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the letter bespeaking proceedings was served on the applicant

Holding

The court believed the process server's uncontradicted sworn statement that the letter was served on the applicant's counsel's office.

Reasoning

The applicant's counsel argued the affidavit of service should have been filed in the High Court with the letter. The court rejected this as misleading, holding there is no requirement to file proof of service of the letter, which was addressed to the registrar and copied to the applicant's advocates. Since no evidence on oath contradicted the process server's statement, the court accepted service as established, and the respondent was entitled to rely on the proviso to rule 84(1) and the certificate of delay.

p. 3
02

Whether the record of appeal filed outside the 60-day period under rule 84(1) should be struck out

Holding

The application to strike out was dismissed; striking out would be harsh and unjust where no injustice or prejudice was occasioned.

Reasoning

Applying Salat, the court held that striking out is a draconian remedy to be used only as a last resort in the clearest of cases. Deviations from procedure that do not go to jurisdiction, the root of the dispute, or occasion prejudice should not attract striking out. Given the conflict over service resolved in the respondent's favour, the appeal was sustained rather than struck out, consistent with the overriding objective under Article 159 of the Constitution and the Appellate Jurisdiction Act.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • There is no requirement to file an acknowledgement or proof of service of the letter bespeaking proceedings together with the letter at the lower court.
  • A party who disputes service must adduce evidence on oath to counter the process server's statement on oath; unchallenged sworn evidence of service will be accepted.
  • Striking out pleadings is a draconian measure of last resort; procedural infractions that cause no injustice should not invalidate a filing.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 14th January 2025 seeking to strike out the record of appeal is dismissed
On appeal from
High Court
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Wanjohi Mathinji v Joseph King'ori Gatungu", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/655/eng@2026-03-25

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