Press Master Ltd v Elego & 103 others (Civil Application E571 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1594 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal struck out an application that used the wrong rules and ignored formatting requirements, showing procedural shortcuts have real limits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an application anchored on the wrong rules of the Court - including rule 86, which provides for striking out notices of appeal or record - could be sustained or salvaged under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
- 2.Whether a 'composite memorandum of appeal' is a document known to and permitted under the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
- 3.Whether the annexed memorandum complied with the format for amendments prescribed by rule 16(2) of the Rules
- 4.Whether the applicant was required to file, and did file, separate notices of appeal in respect of each post-judgment ruling it intended to appeal under rule 77 of the Rules
Key legal issues
#Mis-invocation of the Rules and the reach of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
The application was anchored on rules 4, 47 and 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022, but rule 86 concerns striking out notices of appeal or record - the wrong provision. Had the wrong-rule invocation been the only defect, the Court could have exercised its discretion under Article 159(2)(d), but the application carried further, incurable defects.
Rule 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 governs applications to strike out notices of appeal or records, not leave to file or amend memoranda of appeal. Mis-invoking a rule is a procedural technicality that Article 159(2)(d) could ordinarily cure, as the Supreme Court indicated in Odinga v IEBC. The discretion was not exercised because the application suffered independent substantive defects: the annexed document was not in the prescribed amendment format and no notices of appeal were shown for the post-judgment rulings the applicant wished to appeal.
Whether a 'composite memorandum of appeal' is a recognised document under the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
It is not. The correct vehicle for refining grounds already filed was an amended memorandum of appeal; the applicant, having already filed its memorandum and submissions and with the appeal ready for hearing, ought to have annexed a draft amended memorandum rather than a differently styled composite document.
The Court doubted that a 'composite memorandum of appeal' is mentioned anywhere under the Rules. A party seeking to change an already-filed memorandum must amend it in the prescribed manner, not file a document under a new nomenclature. Because the applicant conceded that its memorandum of appeal and submissions were already on record and the appeal ready for hearing, what should have been annexed was the draft amended memorandum, marked to disclose the proposed additions and deletions, and accompanied by proof of notices of appeal for any additional decisions sought to be challenged.
Compliance with the rule 16(2) format for amendments
An amended document must show deleted words or figures struck through in red ink and added words or figures written or underlined in red ink. The annexed memorandum failed this format test because the Court could not tell what was in the original memorandum and what was new.
Rule 16(2) prescribes the form of amendment precisely so that the Court and the opposing party can see what is proposed to be added or deleted. Amendment includes any words not in the original draft, so even additions alone must be marked in red ink. The applicant's failure to follow the format meant the Court could not assess the scope or effect of the intended amendment, compounding the mis-invocation of the wrong rules and rendering the application incurably defective.
Whether one notice of appeal can cover multiple distinct decisions of the superior court
No. An appeal lies against a particular decree, order or decision. Each separate and distinct decision ordinarily gives rise to a separate appeal requiring its own notice of appeal, filed and served within the prescribed timelines. The notice for the 10th August 2018 judgment could not cover the later rulings of Onyango, J. dated 20th December 2019 and 25th September 2025.
Rule 77(1) requires a person desiring to appeal to give written notice lodged in two copies with the registrar of the superior court. Because a court may render separate and distinct decisions at different times, each decision ordinarily generates its own appeal with a notice addressed to that specific decision and filed within time. The applicant filed an appeal against the 2018 judgment only; it neither annexed notices of appeal for the post-judgment rulings nor otherwise removed doubt that such notices were filed and served.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal lies against a particular decree, order or decision of a court; where a court renders separate and distinct decisions at different times, each decision ordinarily gives rise to its own appeal and requires its own notice of appeal, filed and served within the prescribed timelines.
- Any amended version of a document lodged in court must comply with rule 16(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022: deletions struck through in red ink and additions written or underlined in red ink, so the Court can see what is proposed to be amended.
- Invoking the wrong rule is a procedural technicality which the Court could excuse under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, but that discretion cannot cure substantive non-compliance with the Rules, such as failure to use the prescribed amendment format or the absence of notices of appeal for the decisions sought to be appealed.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 16th April, 2026 is struck out
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Employment and Labour Relations Court
- ELRC No. 468 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal exercised through a notice of motion expressed to be brought under rules 4, 47 and 86 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution invoked in support of the application
Relief refused
#Leave to file and serve a composite memorandum of appeal and further submissions
The application was wanting of form: it invoked the wrong rules (rule 86 concerns striking out), the 'composite memorandum of appeal' is not a document known under the Rules, and no notices of appeal were shown for the post-judgment rulings
An order deeming the annexed composite memorandum of appeal as duly filed upon payment of the requisite court fees
The annexed document was not a draft amended memorandum in the rule 16(2) prescribed format, so the Court could not tell what was in the original memorandum and what was new
Costs of the application in the appeal
The application was struck out, and the Court made no orders as to costs
Costs
No orders as to costs - the application was struck out with no orders to costs.
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.
For the reasons given in this ruling, I find the application, inter alia, wanting of form, and accordingly, strike it out with no orders to costs.
From the wordings of these provisions, it is implied that an appeal lies against a particular decree, order or decision of the court.
When a court renders separate and distinct decisions at difierent times, each decision ordinarily gives rise to an appeal thus requiring a separate notice of appeal.
Amendment includes any words that were not in the original draft, so that even if nothing is intended to be deleted, what is added is shown clearly in red ink.
In the present application, the applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of Nduma Nderi, J. dated 10th August, 2018. That notice cannot be relied on in respect of the later rulings by Onyango, J. dated 20th December, 2019 and 25th September, 2025.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Press Master Ltd v Elego & 103 others (Civil Application E571 of 2022) [2026] KECA 1594 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1594/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.