Governors Balloon Safaris Limited v Skyship Company Limited & another [2016] KECA 567 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let Governors Balloon Safaris take its costs dispute to the Supreme Court, because private disagreements don't qualify as public-interest matters.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance
It does not; the applicant's grounds concern the particular dispute between the parties and do not meet the certification threshold.
Applying the Hermanus Steyn principles, the Court held the applicant had not demonstrated that the issues to be canvassed transcend the circumstances of the case or bear significantly on the public interest. The applicant's contentions about national values, administration of justice and the transitional county-government provisions were tied to its own dispute over taxation of costs and the substitution of parties, and were therefore not matters of general public importance.
Whether the Court needed to rule on the validity of the notice of appeal and the stay application
It did not; having found no matter of general public importance, those questions fall to the Supreme Court.
The Court declined to determine the preliminary objection based on rule 31(2) of the Supreme Court Rules or the request for stay, reasoning that once certification fails, questions about the notice of appeal and stay of the Court of Appeal's order are matters within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not the Court of Appeal on a certification application.
The distinction between leave to appeal to an intermediate court and certification to appeal to the Supreme Court
Certification is a genuine filtering process targeting appeals with elements of general public importance, not a merits review.
Relying on its earlier decision in Hermanus Philipus Styne, subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court, the Court reiterated that leave to appeal to an intermediate court tests whether the appeal has realistic chances of success, whereas certification for the Supreme Court tests whether the appeal raises issues of general public interest transcending the parties' dispute.
Legal principles established
#- Certification to appeal to the Supreme Court requires that the issue to be canvassed transcend the circumstances of the particular case and have a significant bearing on the public interest
- Determinations of fact, by themselves, cannot ground certification for an appeal to the Supreme Court
- On a certification application, the merits of the Court of Appeal decision are irrelevant; the only question is whether the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance
Court orders
#- 1.The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Civil Application No. NAI 32 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4) of the Constitution and Rule 24(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2014
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Governors Balloon Safaris Limited v Skyship Company Limited & another [2016] KECA 567 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Application No. SUP 10 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/567/eng@2016-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.