Accredo AG & 3 Others v Steffano Uccelli & Another [2020] KECA 719 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let a long-running hotel dispute reach the Supreme Court, finding no legal issue of wide public importance was raised.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a matter of general public importance arises from the Court of Appeal's decision upholding a res judicata ruling
No. The decision applied settled res judicata principles and created no uncertainty in the law; nothing in it transcends the facts of the case.
The Court applied the Steyn v Gnecchi-Ruscone guidelines: the applicant must show a substantial point of law of exceptional public significance that goes beyond the facts and where the law stands in a state of uncertainty. The Court found the res judicata ruling was unremarkable and created no novel or exceptional uncertainty, so the threshold for certification was not met.
Whether complaints about the setting aside of a consent order at the interlocutory stage could found certification
No. Those complaints attack Chitembwe, J.'s ruling as addressed in the Court of Appeal's judgment of 15th December 2017, for which certification was never sought; the Court declined to consider them.
The certification application was directed at the 21st August 2019 judgment arising from W. Korir, J.'s res judicata ruling. The grievance about final orders made at the interlocutory stage properly attaches to the earlier decision of 15th December 2017. Since certification had not been sought in respect of that decision, the Court considered it inopportune to address those matters, which could not be smuggled in through the present application.
Legal principles established
#- For certification under Article 163(4)(b), the applicant must show a point of law that transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice is not a proper basis for certification
- Certification must be sought in respect of the decision actually under challenge; matters arising from an earlier decision for which certification was never sought cannot be addressed in a later certification application
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th October 2019 seeking certification is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution; sections 15 and 16 of the Supreme Court Act (certification of a matter of general public importance)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Accredo AG & 3 Others v Steffano Uccelli & Another [2020] KECA 719 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Civil Appeal (Application) No. Sup. 43 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2020/719/eng@2020-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.