Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealDismissedCivil Application Sup. 4 of 2017· [2020] KECA 613 (KLR)

Ebby Ondieki v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] KECA 613 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
5 June 2020
2,220 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Court of Appeal refused to let a bank customer take her damages case to the Supreme Court, confirming that purely private money claims don't qualify.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru (Okwengu, Murgor and ole Kantai, JJ.A.) on an application for certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The underlying dispute arose from the theft of Kshs.800,000 from the applicant in a Barclays Bank queue in 1999. The trial court (Maraga, J.) apportioned liability equally; the Court of Appeal (Waki, Nambuye and Kiage, JJ.A.) on 18th October 2017 reversed that apportionment, held the bank fully liable, awarded the balance of Kshs.475,000 with interest after factoring in Kshs.325,000 recovered from the thieves, and dismissed the cross-appeal claim for loss of user damages because that claim had never been pleaded before the High Court. The applicant sought certification on the sole ground that the Court of Appeal declined to award loss-of-user damages. Applying its own decisions in Greenfield Investments and Steyn and the Supreme Court's Steyn principles, the court held that the intended appeal raised no matter of general public importance: the damages issue was personal to the applicant and, in any event, unpleadable on appeal. The application was dismissed with costs to the bank.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)

Holding

It does not; the only point for the intended appeal is the refusal of loss-of-user damages, which is personal to the applicant and not a point of law affecting the public interest.

Reasoning

The court applied the Steyn principles: the matter must transcend the particular case and bear significantly on the public interest. The applicant's claim for loss of user of stolen money was a private damages grievance. Moreover, the Court of Appeal had already held that the claim was never pleaded before the High Court, so the issue could not be entertained on appeal at all. Certifications are not fare for ordinary cases however complex.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • For certification of an appeal to the Supreme Court, the intending appellant must show that the issue transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; determinations of fact and ordinary damages awards between parties do not qualify.
  • A Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to entertain an issue that was not pleaded before the High Court, and that limitation equally forecloses certification on such an issue.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for certification of a matter of general public importance for appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the bank

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 163(4)(b)
  • Supreme Court Actvarious provisions
  • Supreme Court Rulesvarious provisions

Cases cited (3)

  • Greenfield Investments Limited v Baber Alibhai Manji
    Civil Application No. Sup 5 of 2012
  • Hermanus Philipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone
    Civil Application No. Sup 4 of 2012
  • Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi – Ruscone
    [2013] eKLR
On appeal from
Court of Appeal at Nyeri
Civil Appeal No. 107 of 2012
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 - certification of a matter of general public importance for appeal to the Supreme Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ebby Ondieki v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited [2020] KECA 613 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Application Sup. 4 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/613/eng@2020-06-05

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.