Kenya Meat Commission v Kenya Union of Commercial Food and Allied Workers

4. The question is whether the applicant has satisfied the threshold for extension of time under Rule 4 in light of the requirement that a letter bespeaking proceeding must be served on the respondent to exclude time under Rule 84 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022. 5. Rule 84(1) of this Court’s Rules provides that an appeal shall be instituted within sixty (60) days of lodging the Notice of Appeal. The proviso excludes from computation such time as may be certified by the Registrar as having been required for preparation and delivery of proceedings, provided that the appellant requested for the proceedings in writing within thirty (30) days and served the letter upon the respondent. 6. 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. 7. From the record, although a letter dated 7th February 2025 was written requesting proceedings, there is no affidavit of service or acknowledgment evidencing service upon counsel for the respondent. 8. This Court has consistently held that failure to serve the letter bespeaking proceedings disentitles an applicant from relying on a certificate of delay. (See: Musambayi & others (Sued on his own behalf and on behalf of 41 others) v Katula & another (Suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of Stephen Katula Muyendi) (Civil Appeal (Application) No. E827 of 2022) [2024] KECA 186 (KLR). 9. Likewise, in Marwa v Chacha [2025] KECA 2151 (KLR), this Court reiterated that where service of the letter bespeaking proceedings is not demonstrated, time runs uninterrupted and the applicant cannot benefit from the exclusion contemplated under Rule 84. 10. The Supreme Court in Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v IEBC & 7 Others [2014] eKLR affirmed that extension of time is not a right but an equitable remedy available only to a deserving party who has complied with procedural requirements. 11. In the absence of proof of service, the applicant cannot benefit from exclusion of time. Consequently, the Record of Appeal filed on 4th June 2025 was filed outside the prescribed sixty days. 12. The omission to serve the letter bespeaking proceedings is substantive and not a mere procedural technicality curable under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. 13. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 11th June 2025 is hereby dismissed. The Record of Appeal filed on 4th June 2025 is struck out. 14. The respondent shall have the costs of this application. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026. JAMILA MOHAMMED ............................. JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/412/eng@2026-02-27 2

page 2 of 2