A late filing and a late request to strike it out are different problems. Here, the challengers were too late to attack the notice of appeal, but their challenge to the appeal record succeeded.
What was before the court
The Court of Appeal at Nairobi delivered its ruling on 20 September 2024 in Director of Lands and Urban Planning, Government of Makueni County and another v Ndetei and others, Civil Appeal (Application) No. 165 of 2019. The proceedings arose after the ELC at Makueni struck out a suit in ELC No. 321 of 2017. The application sought to strike out both the notice and the record of appeal. It was not the hearing of the underlying land claim. (Page 1; page 2, paragraph 2; page 7, dated closing.)
The applicants alleged late filings; the respondents argued that excluding weekends made them timely. These were procedural positions, not ownership findings. (Pages 2-3, paragraphs 2-3.)
Filing time was only the first question
The court found that the notice had not been filed within the required fourteen days of the ELC decision. It also found that the record had not been filed within the applicable sixty-day period following the notice. The ruling applied the 2010 Court of Appeal Rules to these filings and identified the corresponding 2022 numbering where relevant. (Pages 3-5, paragraphs 5-7.)
The court rejected excluding intervening weekends and public holidays for these periods. But the parties seeking strike-out had a deadline of their own. (Pages 4-5, paragraphs 6-8.)
Under the proviso discussed in the ruling, a strike-out application had to be brought within thirty days after service of the notice or record, depending on which document was challenged. That service-based clock was distinct from the original filing deadline. (Page 5, paragraph 8.)
Why the two challenges had different outcomes
The court found that the challenge to the notice had been brought outside that thirty-day window. It therefore held that this part of the application was unsustainable, even though it had already found the notice itself late. A failed strike-out request did not convert the late notice into a timely one. (Pages 5-6, paragraphs 9-10.)
The record was treated separately. The court found the application attacking that document timely and rejected the respondents' repeated argument that weekends and holidays should be excluded when calculating their filing period. The challenge to the record consequently succeeded. (Pages 6-7, paragraphs 11-12.)
A failed challenge to an appeal notice does not establish that the record survived or that the appeal was ready for determination.
The order, read with its reasons
The court noted that the respondents had not used the option of seeking an extension of time under rule 4. It allowed the application with costs to the county applicants. Read with the immediately preceding reasons, that outcome upheld the challenge to the record; the challenge to the notice was time-barred. It should not be summarised as a successful strike-out of both documents. (Pages 6-7, paragraphs 10-13.)
This procedural ruling establishes neither ownership nor the underlying claim's merits. It grants no extension and says nothing about later outcomes.
Questions for an appeal file
- Which documents are involved: the notice, the record, or an application directed at one of them?
- What evidence establishes filing and service, rather than merely the date printed on a document?
- Which rule and version govern each period, and has counsel distinguished the filing clock from the challenge clock?
- Is there an actual extension order, and what exactly did the operative ruling dispose of?
These questions require the court file, service evidence and qualified Kenyan legal advice. This historical example is not a calculator for a present filing deadline.
Source and current-status limits
The source is the official Judiciary September 2024 collection, specifically the seven-page application ruling in Appeal No. 165 of 2019, paragraphs 1-13. It was read on 30 September 2026. Some notice and motion dates vary within the source; the account above preserves the court's express conclusions without reconstructing a definitive filing calendar.
Later extensions, reviews and appeal history have not been researched for this article. No present enforceability or ownership conclusion follows.
If considering ArdhiScore, review its screening scope and limitations. Screening does not establish title, keep proceedings within time, or guarantee that every relevant record will be found.