IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION ONE

ISAAC M. NSEJJERE, ) No. 81472-9-I

)

Appellant, )

)

v. )

)

AFC LEOPARDS FOOTBALL CLUB, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ALLAN KASAVULI, PATRICK NGAIRA, )

GEORGE ALADWA, ESTHER )

LUVEMBE, TIMOTHY LILUMBI, )

)

Respondents. ) 

)

VERELLEN, J. — Isaac Nsejjere appeals the superior court’s denial of his 

motion for summary judgment and dismissal of his action for unacceptable 

litigation practices. Nsejjere argues he provided adequate proof of service of 

process on a soccer club in Kenya by means of a letter rogatory consistent with 

CR 4(i)(1)(B) but fails to meet his burden of citing pertinent legal authority or 

providing adequate legal argument. We affirm.

FACTS

Around September 2019, appellant Isaac Nsejjere filed a complaint in King 

County Superior Court against the AFC Leopards Football Club, a professional 

soccer team based in Kenya, and individuals whom he alleged were team officials. 

Nsejjere alleged claims of promissory estoppel, promissory fraud, and equitable 

estoppel. 
No. 81472-9-I/2

2

Nsejjere requested that the superior court issue a letter rogatory, and the 

court did. The letter rogatory requested that the appropriate judicial authority of 

Kenya permit service of process on the defendants.

On February 20, 2020, Nsejjere filed a motion for summary judgment. 

Nsejjere attached a copy of the letter rogatory issued by superior court as exhibit F 

to the motion.

On May 1, 2020, the superior court denied Nsejjere’s motion for summary 

judgment without prejudice for lack of sufficient proof of service. The court 

explained: 

In relevant part, for service in a foreign country, service is “sufficient 

if service of the summons and complaint is made . . . as directed by 

the foreign authority in response to a letter rogatory,” and “must be 

reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to give actual 

notice.” CR 4(i)(1). There is no indication in the Motion or Mathew 

Musotsi’s Affidavit of Service that service was effectuated as directed 

by the appropriate foreign authority, or that service was reasonably 

calculated under the circumstances to give actual notice.

[1]

On May 8, 2020, Nsejjere filed a motion for reconsideration. Nsejjere 

attached a copy of the letter rogatory as exhibit F, as he had in his motion for 

summary judgment. However, this letter rogatory had a stamp on the first and last 

pages which read “High Court of Kenya Milimani Received 19 Sep 2019 Civil 

Registry Civil Division.”2 Besides the addition of the stamp, the exhibit was 

identical to the exhibit F that Nsejjere had attached to his motion for summary 

judgment. Nsejjere offered no explanation why the exhibit F to the summary 

 

1 Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 92.

2 CP at 117-19.
No. 81472-9-I/3

3

judgment motion lacked any purported stamp of the High Court of Kenya, but the 

exhibit F to the motion for reconsideration did include that stamp.

On May 15, 2020, the superior court denied Nsejjere’s motion for 

reconsideration. The superior court ruled that Nsejjere had not proven service 

under the civil rules because he lacked evidence that a Kenyan court actually 

directed service. The superior court further ruled that the second stamped copy of 

the letter rogatory, submitted by Nsejjere as exhibit F to his motion to reconsider, 

was not credible and not authentic. The court dismissed Nsejjere’s action for 

unacceptable litigation practices because he submitted the inauthentic exhibit F. 

Nsejjere appeals. 

ANALYSIS

It is critical that an appellant provide adequate briefing on the issues raised 

on appeal.3 We “will not review issues for which inadequate argument has been 

briefed or only passing treatment has been made.”4 He also has the burden to 

provide authority supporting his legal theories on appeal.5

Nsejjere’s brief cites incorrect legal standards. For example, Nsejjere 

contends the standard of review is “clear error,” relying on inapplicable federal

 

3 See RAP 10.3.

4 State v. Thomas, 150 Wn.2d 821, 868-69, 83 P.3d 970 (2004) (emphasis 

added).

5 Arguments that are not supported by pertinent authority or meaningful 

analysis need not be considered. See Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 

118 Wn.2d 801, 809, 828 P.2d 549 (1992) (arguments not supported by authority); 

Saunders v. Lloyd’s of London, 113 Wn.2d 330, 345, 779 P.2d 249 (1989)

(arguments not supported by adequate argument and authority).
No. 81472-9-I/4

4

case law rather than Washington authority. Throughout his brief, he cites about 

two dozen inapplicable federal cases and multiple inapplicable California and 

Florida state decisions. While he does cite some Washington case law, none of 

those cases actually address the issues he seeks to raise on appeal. 

Specifically, the briefing on appeal does not include pertinent legal authority 

to address or only treats in passing: the actual standard of review applicable to the 

trial court rulings; the requirements for a valid declaration of service of process 

made in a foreign country based on a letter rogatory; the proper means of proof of 

direction by a foreign authority for service based upon a letter rogatory; the 

discretion of the trial court to reject a motion for reconsideration purporting to rely 

on new evidence; the impact of a lack of explanation for why the copy of the letter 

rogatory filed in support of the motion for summary judgment lacks any stamp of 

the Kenyan High Court and why the version of that same document filed in support 

of the motion for reconsideration several months later does include such a stamp; 

any authority supporting his contention that a trial court should engage in direct 

communication by telephone with a foreign authority dealing with a letter rogatory; 

and the impact of an order of dismissal that does not recite it is a dismissal with 

prejudice.6

 

6 Nsejjere also has not provided any report of proceedings and appears to 

rely on facts outside the record on appeal such as the provision of direct contact 

information for the High Court of Kenya and the trial court’s lack of attempting any 

direct contact with the foreign authority.
No. 81472-9-I/5

5

We are not obligated to research the merits on issues that have not been 

adequately briefed by the appellant. We decline to do so here.

Affirmed.

WE CONCUR: