Kennedy Nyamumbo Sese v Settlement Fund Trustees & 2others [2019] KECA 135 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to send a land boundary dispute to the Supreme Court, confirming only issues of broad public importance can reach that level.
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 questions posited by the applicant for consideration by the Supreme Court raise matters of general public importance warranting certification and leave to appeal under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#What constitutes a matter of general public importance for certification to the Supreme Court
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the questions raised transcend the parties' private boundary and contract dispute; certification was refused.
The court applied the Steyn test and restated principles from KPAWU, Pati Limited and Town Council of Awendo. A matter must have substantial, broad-based impact transcending the litigation-interests of the parties and bear on the public interest. The dispute here was a boundary dispute governed by settled law, with contractual questions governed by the sale agreement; no lacuna or gap in the law was shown and the questions were not raised in the courts below.
Whether novel questions may be framed for the first time on an application for certification
Questions not raised or litigated in the High Court or Court of Appeal cannot be certified as matters of general public importance.
Relying on Pati Limited and Malcolm Bell, the court held that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is not invoked to rectify errors on settled law, and one cannot frame novel matters as matters of general public importance when applying for leave. The applicant's five questions were neither raised nor canvassed below.
Whether the duty to observe natural justice and due process by a statutory body raises a matter of general public importance
No - it is settled law that any person or administrative body must observe natural justice and due process, so the Supreme Court's time need not be spent on it.
The court held that the right to be heard and due process are well ingrained in Kenya's legal system; determining whether the SFT should observe natural justice does not attract the Supreme Court's input and does not constitute a jurisprudential moment.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in a certification application under Article 163(4)(b), the applicant must demonstrate that the intended appeal involves a matter of general public importance - one whose impacts and consequences are substantial, broad-based, transcending the litigation-interests of the parties and bearing upon the public interest; and the questions must have arisen and been determined in the courts below.
Court orders
#- 1.We decline to grant leave and certification to appeal to the Supreme Court.
- 2.The applicant is to bear the costs of this application.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Eldoret
- Civil Appeal No.5 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Application for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
The questions posited do not evince matters of general public importance; they are a private boundary and contract dispute with no jurisprudential moment
Costs
The applicant is to bear the costs of this application (dismissed with costs to the respondents).
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.
…a matter of general public importance warranting the exercise of the appellate jurisdiction would be a matter of law or fact, provided only that: its impacts and consequences are substantial, broad-based, transcending the litigation-interests of the parties, and bearing upon the public interest.
One cannot frame novel matters as forming matters of general public importance when making an application for leave either in the Court of Appeal or this Court.
We decline to grant leave and certification to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The applicant is to bear the costs of this application.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Masinde v Wafula & 2 others (Sued as an Administrator of the Estate of Zebedayo Masinde Wakweika) (Environment & Land Case 144 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 4630 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 4630 (KLR)17 Jun 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kennedy Nyamumbo Sese v Settlement Fund Trustees & 2others [2019] KECA 135 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Application No. SUP. 5 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/135/eng@2019-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.