Barnge'tuny v Virji (Civil Application 14 of 2021) [2021] KECA 6 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let a private land dispute go to the Supreme Court because it raised no issue of general public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
It does not; the dispute over the sale agreement and payment of consideration was governed by the parties' private terms and does not transcend the particular case into the public realm.
The Court applied the Steyn principles: a matter of general public importance must be substantial, broad-based, transcend the litigation interests of the parties and bear on the public interest. The dispute concerned whether a sale agreement existed and whether the purchase price was paid — quintessentially a two-party contest over private contractual terms, whose factual determination could not significantly affect the public interest in Kenya.
Whether the alleged lacuna in, and need for interpretation of, section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act justified certification
No. The issue was never raised, canvassed or determined in the courts below and is a new issue; in any event the provision is clear and unambiguous and no uncertainty was demonstrated.
The Court reiterated that questions of law forming the basis of certification must have arisen in the courts below and been the subject of judicial determination. The record showed nowhere that interpretation of section 3(3) was raised. Further, the provision's intention is set out in the Act's preamble, so the applicant failed to demonstrate any uncertainty requiring the Supreme Court's clarification.
Legal principles established
#- For certification under Article 163(4)(b), the issue sought to be appealed must have arisen in the courts below and been the subject of judicial determination; new issues raised for the first time on certification cannot ground the certificate.
- Determinations of fact in contests between parties and purely private contractual disputes do not transcend the particular case and cannot ground certification for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the notice of motion dated 23rd February 2021 seeking certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Kisumu
- Civil Appeal No. 262 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; sections 15 and 16 of the Supreme Court Act; Rule 33 of the Supreme Court Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Barnge'tuny v Virji (Civil Application 14 of 2021) [2021] KECA 6 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application No. 262 of 2019 (Certification Motion dated 23rd February 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/6/eng@2021-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.