Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & another v Njuguna & 4 others (Civil Application 18 of 2014) [2024] KECA 1186 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused KCAA permission to appeal to the Supreme Court because the application was filed years too late and raised no issues of broad public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the intended appeal involves a matter of general public importance warranting certification under Article 163(4)(b)
- 2.Whether the application, filed well outside the 30-day period under rule 41(2) of the Court's Rules, is competent
- 3.Whether limitation under section 7E(b) of the Civil Aviation Act applies to actions filed after commencement even where cause of action accrued before
- 4.Whether claims for unlawful termination of employment can be presented as a class suit
- 5.Whether awards for termination of employment must observe statutory limits such as section 49(1)(c) of the Employment Act
Key legal issues
#Competency of a certification application filed out of time
The application was lodged about eight years after the decision, with no explanation of steps taken between lodgment and its dismissal for non-appearance; it is out of time and incompetent.
Rule 41(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules requires a certification application within 30 days of the impugned decision. The decision was delivered on 4th April 2014 but the application was lodged on 22nd September 2014 and thereafter lay dormant for about eight years before reinstatement. The applicants gave no explanation for the inactivity, so the application could not proceed to merits on a competent footing.
Whether the limitation and class-suit questions are matters of general public importance
The limitation issue was not raised before the High Court and thus fails the Steyn criterion that questions must have been judicially determined below; the class-suit and quantum issues do not transcend the circumstances of the case.
The Court applied the Supreme Court's principles in Steyn v Ruscone. Since the limitation point was raised for the first time on appeal, it could not be certified. The quantum complaint under section 49 of the Employment Act is decided case by case under section 49(4), and the class-suit issue is governed by existing joinder rules, so neither carries the requisite significant bearing on public interest.
Legal principles established
#- An application for certification of a matter of general public importance must be made within 30 days of the decision sought to be challenged; unexplained inordinate delay renders it incompetent.
- For certification, questions of law must have arisen in the courts below and been the subject of judicial determination; issues raised for the first time on appeal do not qualify.
- Quantum of damages for wrongful dismissal and unfair termination is assessed case by case under section 49(4) of the Employment Act, and such case-specific questions do not transcend the particular case for certification purposes.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for certification is disallowed with costs to the 1st respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (decision sought to be appealed to Supreme Court)
- Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2010
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution - certification that a matter of general public importance is involved
Relief refused
#Certification that the intended appeal involves a matter of general public importance
Application hopelessly out of time and issues raised fail the Steyn test for general public importance
Leave to file notice of appeal out of time
Flowing from the failure of certification and inordinate delay
Costs
Costs of the application to the 1st respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The upshot is that we find that the application is unmerited and we disallow it with costs to the 1st respondent.
we are of the considered view that the application is hopelessly out of time and consequently incompetent
such question or questions of law must have arisen in the Court or Courts below, and must have been the subject of judicial determination
quantum of damages for wrongful dismissal and unfair termination are awarded by courts on a case by case basis, taking into account various factors as stipulated in section 49(4) of the same Act
Issues in the judgment
#The supporting affidavit is described as sworn on 9th September 2021 while the application is dated 9th September 2014, an apparent date inconsistency
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & another v Njuguna & 4 others (Civil Application 18 of 2014) [2024] KECA 1186 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Application (Certification) arising from Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/1186/eng@2024-09-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.