Clerk, Nairobi City County Assembly v Speaker, Nairobi City County Assembly & another (Civil Application E003 of 2022) [2023] KECA 1004 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let a former Nairobi Assembly Clerk take his personal employment dispute to the Supreme Court, ruling it raised no public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the notice of appeal as a jurisdictional prerequisite
The notice of appeal dated April 13, 2022 and lodged on April 14, 2022 was within the 14-day period under rule 36(1) of the Supreme Court Rules and was properly on record, so the Court retained jurisdiction to hear the certification application.
The respondents contended that no timely notice of appeal was filed, which would oust the Court's jurisdiction. The Court examined the applicant's affidavit and found an annexed notice of appeal dated April 13, 2022, lodged on April 14, 2022, within 14 days of the April 1, 2022 judgment. The jurisdictional objection therefore failed and the Court proceeded to the merits.
Whether the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance
It does not. The issues were in personam, confined to the applicant's personal employment dispute, and the alleged impact on other clerks seconded by the Transition Authority was rebutted.
Applying Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone and Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers' Union, the Court held that the issues do not transcend the applicant's personal interests; the orders sought were in personam. The claim that other clerks seconded by the defunct Transition Authority would be affected was rebutted, their employment having been saved by the unappealed decision in Silas Kipruto v County Government of Baringo.
Novelty and jurisprudential value of the issues raised
The issues raised are well settled, having been determined by various courts before, and there is no jurisprudential value in the Supreme Court addressing them.
The applicant sought certification on issues such as whether courts can make findings on unpleaded matters, grant unsought reliefs, suo moto set aside consent orders, and uphold judgments tainted by ex-post alteration. The Court found these issues not novel; they have been raised and determined before and are well settled, hence certification was unwarranted.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in an application for certification under Article 163(4)(b), an applicant must demonstrate that the issue raised transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; determinations of facts between parties or mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice do not qualify.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated May 24, 2022 for certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Civil Appeal No. E255 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; rules 24 and 26 of the Supreme Court Rules; rule 40 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Clerk, Nairobi City County Assembly v Speaker, Nairobi City County Assembly & another (Civil Application E003 of 2022) [2023] KECA 1004 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Civil Application No. E255 of 2021 (intended appeal from Civil Appeal No. E255 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/1004/eng@2023-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.