Ananias N Kiragu v Eric Mugambi, Franklin Mwirigi & another [2019] KECA 911 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to send a dispute over a Njuri Ncheke elders' award to the Supreme Court because it raised no issue of 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 raises matters of general public importance warranting certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
- 2.Whether the effective implementation of Article 159(2)(c) and (3) of the Constitution on Alternative Dispute Resolution, and the question whether adoption of ADR awards depends on the parties' consent, transcend the parties' dispute
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
It does not; the Court's decision on adoption of the Njuri Ncheke award does not go beyond the parties' dispute, and the grounds of appeal concern contested facts and merits review.
Applying the Malcolm Bell criteria, the Court found the issues were confined to the parties: the impugned ruling concerned only whether a non-consensual elders' award could be adopted in a pending appeal. The draft petition revolved around contested facts and merits review, which cannot found certification, and the applicant sought merely to have the Supreme Court adopt and enforce the award.
Whether the law on adoption of ADR awards and the role of party consent is unsettled such that Supreme Court guidance is needed
The law is settled; no lacuna or uncertainty was demonstrated regarding Article 159(2)(c) implementation or consent as a prerequisite for adoption of ADR awards.
Apart from asserting the need for the Supreme Court to pronounce on Article 159(2)(c) and consent to ADR awards, the applicant did not show any lacuna. The Court, citing Koinange Investments, held the law on ADR and adoption of awards is settled, so certification could not rest on an asserted but undemonstrated uncertainty.
Legal principles established
#- Certification under Article 163(4)(b) is a filtering process: only appeals whose determination transcends the particular case and bears significantly on the public interest may proceed to the Supreme Court.
- An applicant for certification must demonstrate a lacuna or uncertainty in the law; where the law is settled, certification will be refused.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for certification is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Malindi
- Civil Appeal No. 59 of 2016
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution (application for certification that a matter of general public importance is involved in an intended appeal to the Supreme Court)
Relief refused
#Certification that the intended appeal to the Supreme Court involves matters of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
The issues raised do not transcend the circumstances of the particular dispute; they revolve around contested facts and the law on ADR and adoption of awards is settled
Costs
The application is 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.
The essence of certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution is to ensure that only appeals which raise issues of public importance escalate to the Supreme Court.
As this Court observed in Africa Merchant Assurance Company vs. Kenya Power & Lighting Company Limited [2018] eKLR, there is no hard and fast definition of what a matter of general public importance entails.
Consequently, the application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment cites the Steyn case with two different years ([2013] eKLR in the respondent's submissions and [2012] eKLR when the Court cites it), suggesting inconsistent citation of the same authority.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ananias N Kiragu v Eric Mugambi, Franklin Mwirigi & another [2019] KECA 911 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Civil Appeal (Application) No. 59 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2019/911/eng@2019-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.