Mint Holdings Limited v Kinluck Holdings Limited & 1 other

The court applied the settled certification principles from Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone, Mitubell Welfare Society and Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union. It held that the intended appeal primarily challenges whether the Court of Appeal was right to order retransfer of the suit property - essentially an expression of dissatisfaction. The questions of how the agreement was signed, how the transfer was done and the nature of the undertaking were matters of fact and law relevant only to the parties. No uncertainty in the law or contradictory precedents was identified, and no specific element of general public importance transcending the litigation was demonstrated.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sum Model Industries Ltd v Industrial & Commercial Development Corporation, the court reiterated that although certification may be sought from either court, it is good practice to originate the application in the Court of Appeal, which has had the advantage of assessing the facts and legal arguments. A direct application to the Supreme Court bypassing the Court of Appeal would amount to an abuse of court process.

The court observed that although the hierarchical judicial system provides an elaborate appellate ladder, applicants should examine the weight of their case before climbing a further step. The litigation had run since 1995, and nothing placed before the court demonstrated that the applicant should try its luck in the Supreme Court. The court endorsed the principle that litigation must end irrespective of who is left with tears or pain, underscoring finality in litigation.