Grace Samson Komen v William Kiprop Komen, Rachael Chepng'eno, Mohamed Komen & Sote Komen
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to send a family inheritance dispute to the Supreme Court, ruling that ordinary succession disagreements do not raise matters of general public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the intended appeal to the Supreme Court involves matters of general public importance warranting certification under Article 163(4)(b)
Key legal issues
#Whether the two proposed issues (deviation from a deceased's ascertainable wishes; payment of estate liabilities from one house or gross assets) raise matters of general public importance
They do not; they are ordinary succession questions of daily occurrence in the courts, not novel or jurisprudentially taxing questions requiring the Supreme Court's norm-setting pronouncement
The court applied the ten-pronged threshold distilled in Kiran Chandubhai Patel v Transworld Safaris Ltd, holding that the proposed issues are common, run-of-the-mill succession matters decided routinely by magistrates' courts, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. They present neither difficulty nor ambiguity, do not transcend the instant case, and amount only to a private, personal grievance by the applicant.
The proper forum for an application for certification under Article 163(4)(b)
The application should be presented first to the Court of Appeal, following the Supreme Court's guidance in Sum Model Industries Ltd
Relying on the Supreme Court's guidance in Sum Model Industries Ltd v ICDC, the court confirmed that the Court of Appeal, having been seized of the matter and assessed the facts and legal arguments, is best placed to certify whether a matter of public importance is involved; a dissatisfied applicant may seek review under Article 163(5).
Legal principles established
#- Certification of an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)(b) requires a discernible matter of general public importance and is granted only in exceptional cases
- Applications for certification as of first instance should ordinarily be presented to the Court of Appeal, which is better placed to assess whether a matter of public importance is involved
Court orders
#- 1.The application for certification of the intended appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya at Nakuru
- Civil Appeal No. 210 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; Rule 24(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012; Rule 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2012
Relief refused
#Certification of the intended appeal to the Supreme Court as involving matters of general public importance
The proposed issues are common run-of-the-mill succession matters that do not transcend the particular case
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs (costs awarded against the applicant).
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 key that opens our certification of an intended appeal as deserving of escalation to the Supreme Court is the presence or existence of a matter of general public importance without which an applicant hopes in vain to receive a ticket to the apex Court.
That Court's existence was never intended to provide an additional tier for the pursuit of appellate justice in any and every case.
They do not transcend the limited scope of the instant case to have a more general significance. They are no more than an expression of a private, personal grievance by the applicant. And they do not deserve certification.
The application is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Coram lists Nambuye, G.B.M. Kariuki & Kiage JJA but the judgment under review was by Gatembu, M'Inoti & J. Mohammed JJA - different panels, correctly distinguished
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Grace Samson Komen v William Kiprop Komen, Rachael Chepng'eno, Mohamed Komen & Sote Komen", Case Analysis (2017). Civil Application No. 125 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2017/778/eng@2017-02-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.