Cordisons International (K) Limited v Chairman National Land Commission & 44 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court strikes out appeal for failing to specify its jurisdiction basis.
What this practically means
#Kenwind (K) Limited appealed to the Supreme Court over a land dispute in Lamu County. The Court found that Kenwind did not clearly state which legal basis allowed the appeal. The lower courts had not interpreted the Constitution as a central issue, and no certification of general public importance was obtained. As a result, the Supreme Court struck out the appeal and ordered Kenwind to pay the respondents' costs.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Petition of Appeal raises any matters of constitutional interpretation or application under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution.
- 2.Whether the Petition of Appeal has been certified as one involving a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) to hear an appeal where the appellant did not specify the jurisdictional basis and the lower courts did not engage in constitutional interpretation or application.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) because the appellant failed to specify the jurisdictional basis, and the lower courts' decisions did not involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution as a central issue.
The Court noted that the appellant's memorandum of appeal did not indicate which jurisdiction it was invoking. The Court further examined the judgments of the ELC and the Court of Appeal and found that neither court was called upon to specifically and directly put the meaning, tenor and effect of any Article of the Constitution into their reasoning. The dispute was about the legality of an allotment letter and whether judicial review orders should issue, which was an administrative action question, not a constitutional one. The mere reference to Articles 47, 62, and 67 did not transform the dispute into one requiring constitutional interpretation or application.
Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(b) to hear an appeal that has not been certified as involving a matter of general public importance.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(b) because the appellant did not obtain certification from either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court that the matter involves a matter of general public importance.
The Court stated that for an appeal to lie under Article 163(4)(b), the appellant must comply with the certification requirement under Article 163(4) and (5). The record showed that no such certification was obtained by the appellant. Therefore, the appeal could not be founded on Article 163(4)(b).
Legal principles established
#- An appellant must clearly state which part of Article 163(4) of the Constitution they rely on for Supreme Court jurisdiction.
- For an appeal as of right, the lower court must have interpreted or applied a specific constitutional provision as a central issue.
- Mere mention of constitutional articles in a judgment does not automatically make it a constitutional interpretation case.
- An appeal on grounds of general public importance requires prior certification from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.
- Failure to specify jurisdiction or obtain certification leads to striking out of the appeal with costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objections by the 5th, 6th as well as the 7th – 38th Respondents are hereby upheld.
- 2.The appeal herein is struck off for want of jurisdiction.
- 3.The Appellant shall pay the costs thereof to the 5th, 6th as well as the 7th – 38th Respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- C.A No.91 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) and (b) of the Constitution
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
it is not for this Court to speculate on jurisdiction and assign to each appeal a jurisdiction not specifically invoked by a party appealing a Court of Appeal Judgment. An Appellant is expected to specify such jurisdiction with clarity to enable both the Court and the opposing party to know what case is before them.
The fact that in doing so, reference was made to Articles 47, 62 and 67 of the Constitution for example would not qualify in the context of the dispute between the parties to bring the present appeal within the purview of Article 163(4)(a).
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Draft precise jurisdictional clauses
When filing an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4), explicitly state whether you rely on (a) constitutional interpretation or (b) certification of general public importance. Failure to do so, as in this case, will result in automatic striking out. Also, ensure the lower court record shows constitutional interpretation was central, not just mentioned.
Verify appeal basis before funding
If your company is involved in a land or administrative dispute and considering a Supreme Court appeal, ensure your legal team confirms the jurisdictional basis. Without clear constitutional interpretation or certification, the appeal will be dismissed. This saves costs and avoids delays. In this case, Kenwind lost and had to pay respondents' costs.
Know your appeal route to Supreme Court
If you lose a case in the Court of Appeal and want to go to the Supreme Court, you must either show the lower courts interpreted the Constitution as a main issue, or get a certificate that your case is of general public importance. Without this, the Supreme Court will not hear your appeal. Always ask your lawyer to confirm this before proceeding.
Frequently asked questions
#How do I appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
You must clearly state whether your appeal is based on constitutional interpretation (Article 163(4)(a)) or certification of general public importance (Article 163(4)(b)). If using (a), the lower court must have interpreted a constitutional provision as central. If using (b), you need prior certification from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court.
What happens if I don't specify the jurisdiction basis in my Supreme Court appeal in Kenya?+
The Supreme Court will strike out your appeal for want of jurisdiction, as happened in Kenwind v National Land Commission. You will also be ordered to pay the other party's costs. Always ensure your memorandum of appeal clearly states which Article 163(4) limb you rely on.
Can I appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya if my case only mentions the Constitution?+
No. Mere reference to constitutional articles in a judgment does not qualify. The lower court must have specifically interpreted or applied a constitutional provision as a central issue in resolving the dispute. If the case was about administrative action or land allocation, it likely does not qualify.
What is a certificate of general public importance for Supreme Court appeals in Kenya?+
It is a formal certification from the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court that your case involves a matter of general public importance. Without this certificate, you cannot appeal under Article 163(4)(b). You must apply for it before filing the appeal, or the appeal will be struck out.
Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mohamed & 4 others v National Land Commission & 12 others (Environment and Land Petition E014 of 2022 & E005 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 7597 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7597 (KLR)30 Oct 2025
- Mohamed & 4 others v National Land Commission & 12 others (Environment and Land Petition E014 of 2022 & E005 of 2025 (Consolidated)) [2025] KEELC 7597 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7597 (KLR)30 Oct 2025
- Dzila v Kwale County Assembly Service Board & 6 others[2025] KESC 33 (KLR)23 May 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Cordisons International (K) Limited v Chairman National Land Commission & 44 others", Case Analysis (2020). Petition 14 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2020/50/eng@2020-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.