Gichuki t/a High Flyer Publishers & another v Kiai t/a High Flyer Services and Publishers & another
The bottom line
#Supreme Court blocks appeal over jointly used trademark, saying it's a private dispute, not a public issue.
What this practically means
#Two former business partners fought over a trademark they once shared. The High Court awarded one side Kshs 20 million, but the Court of Appeal reversed that decision. The losing side tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing the case raised issues important to the public. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the dispute was only about the parties' private business interests, not a matter of general public importance. The appeal was dismissed, and the losing side must pay the other side's legal costs.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to certify the proposed appeal as raising matters of general public importance
- 2.Whether the issues raised by the applicants—unilateral registration of a jointly used trademark, non-disclosure, and alleged violation of fair trial—transcend the parties' private interests to bear wider public significance
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to certify the proposed appeal as raising matters of general public importance
The Supreme Court found no basis to interfere with the Court of Appeal's decision, as the issues raised were confined to the parties' private commercial dispute and did not transcend their specific circumstances.
The applicants argued that the unilateral registration of a jointly used trademark, non-disclosure, and alleged violation of fair trial raised substantial questions of law with public interest. However, the Supreme Court held that these issues did not go beyond the litigants' private interests to bear wider public significance, nor did they raise substantial points of law that had crystallized through the judicial hierarchy. The court emphasized that mere apprehension of a potential miscarriage of justice by the Court of Appeal cannot justify certification, and the applicants failed to demonstrate otherwise.
Whether the applicants' failure to annex a draft Petition of Appeal or draft grounds of appeal was fatal to their application
The Supreme Court did not expressly rule on this procedural issue, but the respondents argued it was fatal as it deprived the court and respondents of evaluating the precise issues for certification.
The respondents submitted that the omission to annex a draft Petition of Appeal or draft grounds was fatal because it prevented the court and respondents from assessing the precise issues the applicants sought to have certified. The Supreme Court did not address this argument directly, instead focusing on the substantive failure to meet the threshold for general public importance.
Legal principles established
#- A case only qualifies as a 'matter of general public importance' if it affects more than just the people directly involved.
- The Supreme Court can review a Court of Appeal decision that denies permission to appeal on a public importance issue.
- Simply claiming a potential injustice by the Court of Appeal is not enough to get Supreme Court certification.
- A trademark dispute between former business partners is a private commercial matter, not a public interest case.
- To appeal to the Supreme Court, you must show the legal question has been settled by lower courts and needs final guidance.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated August 6, 2025 and filed on August 26, 2025 is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The ruling of the Court of Appeal delivered on July 25, 2025 denying leave to appeal to this court is hereby upheld.
- 3.Costs of this application shall be borne by the applicants.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Nairobi Civil Application No. E003 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution, section 15B of the Supreme Court Act, rule 33(2) of the Supreme Court Rules
Relief refused
#Review and set aside the Court of Appeal's decision declining certification
The issues raised do not transcend the specific circumstances of the parties and fail to meet the threshold for general public importance.
Grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
The application fell short of the threshold set out in the Steyn and Bell cases.
Stay of execution of the orders from the impugned judgment
In the absence of certification, the prayer relating to stay of execution is devoid of basis.
Costs
Costs of this application shall be borne by the applicants.
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.
The notice of motion dated August 6, 2025 and filed on August 26, 2025 is hereby dismissed.
The ruling of the Court of Appeal delivered on July 25, 2025 denying leave to appeal to this court is hereby upheld.
Costs of this application shall be borne by the applicants.
This issue does not transcend the specific circumstances of the parties. It neither goes beyond the litigants’ private interests to bear a wider public significance, nor does it raise substantial points of law that have crystallized through the judicial hierarchy so as to qualify for certification.
In the absence of certification, the prayer relating to stay of execution is devoid of basis and accordingly fails.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Certification threshold tightened
When seeking Supreme Court certification under Article 163(4)(b), you must clearly demonstrate how the issue transcends the parties' private interests. Mere allegations of a miscarriage of justice by the Court of Appeal will not suffice. Prepare evidence of wider public impact or a crystallized legal question needing final resolution.
Trademark disputes stay in lower courts
If you are in a trademark dispute with a former business partner, expect the case to end at the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court will not hear appeals unless the issue affects the general public, not just your business. Plan your litigation strategy accordingly and consider alternative dispute resolution to avoid lengthy appeals.
Your private case won't reach Supreme Court
If you are an individual in a commercial dispute, do not assume you can appeal to the Supreme Court. The court only hears cases that raise issues of general public importance, like constitutional questions or matters affecting many people. Your personal business fight, even if you lose, will likely end at the Court of Appeal.
Frequently asked questions
#What is a matter of general public importance in Kenya Supreme Court appeals?+
It means the case must affect more than just the people involved. For example, it could involve a constitutional question or a legal issue that impacts many Kenyans. A private business dispute, like a trademark fight between former partners, does not qualify.
Can I appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya if the Court of Appeal denies me leave?+
Yes, you can ask the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal's decision. But you must show that your case raises a matter of general public importance. If the Supreme Court agrees the issue is only private, it will dismiss your application, as happened in this case.
What happens if I lose a trademark case in the Court of Appeal in Kenya?+
You can try to appeal to the Supreme Court, but only if your case involves a legal question that affects the public, not just your business. If the dispute is about a jointly used trademark between former partners, the Supreme Court will likely refuse to hear it.
How do I prove a case is of general public importance in Kenya?+
You must show the legal issue goes beyond your personal interests and has wider significance, like affecting many people or raising a new legal question. You also need to demonstrate that the issue has been considered by lower courts and needs final guidance from the Supreme Court.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gichuki t/a High Flyer Publishers & another v Kiai t/a High Flyer Services and Publishers & another", Case Analysis (2026). Application E024 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/23/eng@2026-02-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.