Insurance Training & Education Trust v Joseph Ndung'u Gathondu (as The Administrator of The Estate of The Late Thumbi Kariuki Jane Wanjiru Ndumia) & 5 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to send National Housing Corporation's land dispute to the Supreme Court, ruling its issues were case-specific, not of general public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Timeliness of the certification application
The application was filed within time. Rule 41(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules prescribes 30 days from the delivery of the decision, and the application was filed within that period, so the 4th respondent's objection founded on rule 42(b) and a 14-day period failed.
The 4th respondent objected that the application was filed outside the 14 days prescribed by rule 42(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules without leave. The court, however, turned to rule 41(2), which governs certification applications and allows 30 days after delivery of the decision. Measured against that provision, the application was within time and the objection had no merit.
The threshold for certification of an appeal to the Supreme Court
The applicant must show that the issue to be canvassed transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; where a point of law is raised it must be substantial and must have arisen and been determined in the courts below; determinations of fact are not a basis for certification.
Restating settled Supreme Court authority, the court held that Article 163(4)(b) is not a thoroughfare for all intended appeals. Certification requires that the intending appellant identify and concisely set out specific elements of general public importance; questions of law must have arisen in the courts below and been the subject of judicial determination; mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice or fact-finding contests do not qualify.
Whether the applicant's eight issues are matters of general public importance
None of the eight issues qualified. They either concern the specific letters of allotment and grants in this case, challenge the merits of the decision, or are routine issues courts deal with routinely, such as proof of fraud and expert witnesses.
The court analysed each of the eight issues. The question of the Court of Appeal's mandate on re-evaluating evidence and unpleaded issues is governed by rule 31 of the Court of Appeal Rules and is not novel; any alleged overreach goes to the merit of the decision, which certification cannot address. Issues about the specific allotment and grants were case-specific; the Torino retrospectivity framing was specific to this case's circumstances; and the expert-witness/fraud-proofing issue is routine.
Legal principles established
#- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution is not a general channel for all intended appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court; only appeals involving the interpretation or application of the Constitution or matters of general public importance qualify, and mere allegations in pleadings do not confer jurisdiction on the Supreme Court
- An application for certification cannot be used as a vehicle to challenge the merits of the Court of Appeal decision; even if the Court of Appeal considered unpleaded matters, that goes to the merit of the decision and not to certification
- Under rule 41(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, an application seeking certification that a matter of general public importance is involved must be made within 30 days after delivery of the decision
Court orders
#- 1.The application for certification that the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 4th respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, together with the Supreme Court Act and Rules and the Court of Appeal Rules; the application is for certification that an intended appeal to the Supreme Court involves matters of general public importance
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Insurance Training & Education Trust v Joseph Ndung'u Gathondu (as The Administrator of The Estate of The Late Thumbi Kariuki Jane Wanjiru Ndumia) & 5 others", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application (certification application following Civil Appeal No. E505 of 2020 consolidated with Civil Appeal No. E519 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1109/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.