A failed appeal step against a decision about development restrictions is not a new development approval. In Royal Balloon's dispute with Narok County, the Court of Appeal struck out the county's notice because it had been filed late without leave. It did not rehear the merits of the company's operating or development permissions.
The decisions behind the appeal notice
The case is Royal Balloon Ltd v County Government of Narok, Court of Appeal at Nairobi, Civil Application No. NAI. 164 of 2019. The ruling was delivered on 20 September 2024. It concerned a notice seeking to challenge a High Court decision in Narok HC Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2018. (Page 1; page 6, dated closing.)
The appellate ruling recounts that the High Court had quashed two county decisions. One rescinded an earlier approval for the company's hot-air-balloon business. The other prohibited new developments and operations within the area the ruling calls Maasai Mara National Park until a management plan had been implemented. These were related but distinct restrictions. (Pages 1-2, paragraph 2.)
That background matters to a development file: an operating approval, a development restriction and a management-plan condition are not interchangeable documents. The account here comes from the appellate ruling, not an independent examination of the county letters or the plan.
The court examined the missing appeal steps
Royal Balloon sought to have the county's notice struck out or treated as withdrawn. It argued that the notice was late, no extension had been obtained and the intended appeal had not been instituted within the required period. (Pages 1-2, paragraphs 1-4.)
The county's counsel acknowledged that no replying affidavit or written submissions had been filed. The court considered the application, supporting affidavit and applicable rules rather than determining the underlying permission dispute afresh. (Page 3, paragraphs 5-6.)
The court found the notice outside the fourteen-day filing period it applied. It had not been directed to an application extending time. It also found no evidence of a letter requesting proceedings that could support reliance on the time-exclusion provision discussed in the ruling. A substantive appeal had not been filed within the sixty-day period identified by the court. (Pages 4-6, paragraphs 7-10.)
Those findings should not be turned into a deadline calculator for another case. The ruling itself gives differing dates for when the notice was lodged. This note preserves its decisive finding of late filing without reconstructing a definitive filing or service calendar.
Striking out was the chosen order
The ruling discussed both striking out and deemed withdrawal. Its final paragraph expressly chose striking out the notice for incompetence, because it had been filed outside the stipulated period without leave. Each party was to bear its own costs. That costs order should not be replaced by a different result drawn from a rule quoted earlier in the judgment. (Page 6, paragraphs 10-11.)
This was a procedural ruling on the county's intended appeal. It did not issue Royal Balloon a fresh operating licence, approve a particular new development or determine the current state of the management plan. Nor does it establish that no later court proceedings or administrative decisions occurred.
The practical lesson is to read the actual order alongside the decisions it concerns. "The appeal notice was struck out" and "this project currently has all required permissions" are different propositions.
Questions for a project or operating file
- Which county decision did the quashing order address: withdrawal of an operating approval, a development prohibition, or both?
- What approvals, conditions and management-plan requirements apply to the particular site and proposed activity now?
- Is there only a notice of appeal, or an instituted appeal, extension order or relevant stay?
- What filing, service and proceedings-request records support the claimed procedural position?
These questions call for the actual records and advice from a qualified Kenyan advocate and the relevant authorities. They do not assume that winning a procedural application removes every other regulatory requirement.
Source and historical limits
The source is the official Judiciary September 2024 archive, specifically the six-page NAI. 164 of 2019 ruling, paragraphs 1-11, read on 30 September 2026. Later appeals, review proceedings, current approvals and management-plan changes have not been checked for this note. No present right to operate or develop, or current enforceability, is certified.
If considering ArdhiScore, review its screening scope and limitations. Screening does not grant approvals, establish title or guarantee that every relevant record will be found.