Eastlands Theatres Limited & 2 others v Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited

The Court found nothing novel about section 4(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act or the interpretation ascribed to it by the High Court and Court of Appeal. Beyond blanket submissions, the applicants failed to demonstrate that the question transcends the parties' interests or that contradictory precedents exist requiring Supreme Court resolution. Issues of standard forms and inequality of bargaining power in contracts are likewise not novel, and the terms of a contract bind only the parties to it.

The Court held that interest rates charged by banks arise purely out of the commercial transaction between the parties and are not standard but vary across the banking sector, so the issue cannot be said to transcend the parties' interests. It aligned the case with Southern Shield Holding Limited v Delphis Bank Limited, where a private commercial loan dispute was held not to constitute a matter of general public importance absent concise demonstration of specific elements of public interest.

The Court noted that the alleged rights violations were not raised as constitutional issues in the two courts below but were donned with constitutional regalia solely to bring the matter within Article 163(4)(a). Applying Lawrence Nduttu v Kenya Breweries Limited and Njenga Livingstone v Joyce Wanjiku, an appeal to the Supreme Court must originate from a case where constitutional interpretation or application was actually in contest before the Court of Appeal. In any event, recourse on constitutional interpretation lies directly with the Supreme Court.