John Njeru Munyi v Kellyann Wanjiku Njiriri & 3 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed an appellant to skip serving the appeal notice on one non-participating respondent but refused it for others whose service was disputed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the application under Rule 79(1)
The motion filed on 26th November 2025, two days after the Notice of Appeal was lodged on 24th November 2025, was within the seven-day period prescribed.
Rule 79(1) requires an application to dispense with service to be made within seven days of lodging the notice of appeal. The notice was lodged on 24th November 2025 pursuant to leave, and the motion was filed on 26th November 2025. The court therefore found the application was timeously brought and moved to the substantive question.
Whether the 1st respondent falls within the proviso to Rule 79(1)
The 1st respondent was served with summons, failed to enter appearance or file a defence, and interlocutory judgment was entered against him; he was properly before the court but elected not to participate, and so falls within Rule 79(1).
The record showed the 1st respondent was served, did not enter appearance or defend, and interlocutory judgment was entered against him. Being properly before the court yet electing not to participate places him in the category of persons contemplated by Rule 79(1), justifying dispensation of service of the Notice of Appeal upon him.
Whether the 3rd and 4th respondents fall within the proviso to Rule 79(1)
They do not; the superior court found no evidence of proper service on them and no valid interlocutory judgment, and the propriety of service and their liability formed part of the issues determined below and may arise in the intended appeal.
Unlike the 1st respondent, the 3rd and 4th respondents were not shown to have been properly served. More importantly, their service and liability were live issues before the superior court and may arise in the intended appeal. Dispensing with service would risk excluding parties whose status and liability are themselves in dispute, so the court declined dispensation as against them.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 79(1) permits dispensation with service on a person who did not participate in the proceedings before the superior court, provided the application is made within seven days of lodging the notice of appeal; a respondent properly served who elected not to participate falls within the rule, but a party whose service and liability were in issue before the superior court does not.
Court orders
#- 1.Service of the Notice of Appeal upon the 1st respondent is dispensed with
- 2.The prayer for dispensation of service upon the 3rd and 4th respondents is declined
- 3.No order as to costs
- On appeal from
- High Court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 79(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (application to dispense with service of Notice of Appeal); intended appeal pursuant to leave granted by Gatembu Kairu, JA
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Njeru Munyi v Kellyann Wanjiku Njiriri & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1244/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.