https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1272

Commissioner of Domestic Taxes v Hapag-Lloyd Kenya Ltd (Civil Appeal (Application) E775 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1272 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KECA 1272 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Court of Appeal at Nairobi Civil Appeal (Application) E775 of 2025 AO Muchelule, JA July 3, 2026 Between Commissioner of Domestic Taxes Applicant and Hapag-Lloyd Kenya Limited Respondent (Being an application for extension of time to serve the notice of appeal dated 2nd October 2025.) Ruling 1.Vide motion dated 8th January 2026, the Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, the applicant herein, seeks the enlargement of time to serve the notice of appeal filed on 2nd October 2025. Alternatively, the fresh service of the notice be deemed as properly served. It was urged that although the notice of appeal was within the prescribed timeline, there was an inadvertent clerical error in effecting electronic service upon the respondent vide email with respect to the respondent’s email address. Both counsel and the process server believed that service had been effected. Upon discovery of such an error, the applicant took prompt action to serve the respondent afresh. It is deponed that the delay was neither inordinate nor intentional. The respondent admits that the notice of appeal is indeed filed within the judiciary’s portal. As evidenced, the email was sent to litigation.kenya@denton.com instead of litigation.kenya@dentons.com. 2.The motion is opposed. 3.The Court’s discretion under Rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules is wide but must be exercised judicially, guided by considerations of the length and explanation of delay, prejudice to the respondent, and the overall interests of justice. In the present matter, the impugned judgment was delivered on 26th September 2025 and the Notice of Appeal was duly filed on 2nd October 2025 within the prescribed time. The only issue concerns service, where an inadvertent clerical error resulted in the Notice being emailed to litigation.kenya@denton.com instead of litigation.kenya@dentons.com. The applicant explains that counsel and the process server believed service had been properly effected, and the respondent in any event acknowledges that the Notice of Appeal is properly lodged on the Judiciary portal, thereby demonstrating actual knowledge of the intended appeal. 4.In those circumstances, the issue is not one of enlargement of time but rather whether the Court should validate or deem as properly effected the electronic service of the Notice of Appeal notwithstanding the typographical error in the email address.The error is minimal, unintentional, and purely technical in nature. It does not go to the substance of the appellate process, particularly where the Notice of Appeal was filed within time and the respondent was not deprived of knowledge of its existence. No prejudice has been demonstrated, and none is apparent from the record. To insist on strict compliance in such circumstances would elevate from over substance and undermine the overriding objective of the Court to facilitate just, expeditious, and proportionate resolution of disputes. 5.Accordingly, I find that the inadvertent error in the email address constitutes a curable procedural lapse which does not vitiate service. I further find that the respondent has suffered no prejudice and that the interests of justice favour sustaining the right of appeal. In the exercise of this Court’s discretion under Rule 4 and its inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice, I allow the application. The Notice of Appeal filed on 2nd October 2025 is hereby deemed as duly and properly served upon the respondent, and costs shall be in the cause. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.A.O. MUCHELULE..................................JUDGE OF APPEALI certify that this is a true copy of the original.Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR.