Maalim v Registered Trustes of the Agricultural Society of Kenya & 33 others (Civil Appeal 129 of 2018) [2021] KECA 338 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let a golf union election dispute reach the Supreme Court, saying it raised no issue of general public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance warranting certification to the Supreme Court
The Court held that the applicant failed to satisfy the certification criteria in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi Ruscone; the alleged jurisprudential conflict on whether judicial review extends to merits review had been clarified in Super Nova Properties, and the application was dismissed.
The Court applied the Supreme Court's certification principles: the issue must transcend the particular case, bear on the public interest, be a substantial point of law arising and determined in the courts below, and not rest on mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice. Although counsel mapped the Court of Appeal's divergent lines of authority (Suchan Investment versus Bhangra/Darasa), the Court found the doubt created had been resolved by Super Nova Properties and subsequent consistent decisions, leaving no substantial matter of general public importance to justify the intended appeal.
Legal principles established
#- The applicant for certification under Article 163(4)(b) bears the burden of demonstrating that the matter carries specific elements of real public interest and concern that transcend the litigation interests of the parties
- Mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice is not a proper basis for granting certification for an appeal to the Supreme Court
- Where certification is sought on the basis of uncertainty arising from contradictory precedents, the applicant must identify and concisely set out the specific elements of general public importance attributed to the matter
- Alleged conflict in the Court of Appeal's jurisprudence on the scope of judicial review was clarified in Super Nova Properties; subsequent decisions have been consistent, so the applicant's claimed public-importance ground fails
Court orders
#- 1.The application for certification/leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed with costs to the 1st to 8th respondents only
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya
- Judicial review application; ruling dated 11th July 2018 (Ogola, J.); appeal therefrom was Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2018, judgment 14th March 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution (certification of an intended appeal to the Supreme Court as raising a matter of general public importance), Section 3(e) of the Supreme Court Act, 2011 and Rules 3 and 24 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maalim v Registered Trustes of the Agricultural Society of Kenya & 33 others (Civil Appeal 129 of 2018) [2021] KECA 338 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Civil Application (Supreme Court certification) dated 21st May 2019, arising from Civil Appeal No. 129 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2021/338/eng@2021-12-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.