Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherNot stated in the ruling (application under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules)

Mama Watoto Supermarket v NCBA Ltd & another (Civil Application E141 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1802 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
30 October 2025
ASAsike-Makhandia
346 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal certified Mama Watoto Supermarket's application urgent because the other side's submissions ignored the actual question asked, unopposed facts stood.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short single-judge ruling of the Court of Appeal at Kakamega by Asike-Makhandia, JA, sitting as duty judge, on the certification of urgency of an application by Mama Watoto Supermarket under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules seeking injunctive orders. The judge initially declined, ex parte, to certify the application as urgent, and that decision was communicated to the applicant on 17th October 2025. Invoking Rule 49(5), the applicant by letter dated 22nd October 2025 requested an inter partes hearing confined strictly to the question of urgency. The judge directed service on the respondents and that the question be determined on written submissions only, without appearance of counsel or parties. The respondents' submissions, however, addressed the substantive application rather than urgency, and were therefore held irrelevant, leaving the applicant's averments uncontroverted. The applicant further alluded to the 2nd respondent having advertised the suit properties for sale by public auction on 27th November 2025. Finding urgency made out, the judge reviewed his earlier order and certified the application as urgent. No costs order was made, no substantive application was determined, and no authorities were cited. The ruling binds no lower court on any substantive proposition; it is procedural only.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the application should be certified as urgent on inter partes hearing limited to the question of urgency

Key legal issues

#
01

Certification of urgency and the court's power to review its own ex parte certification decision after an inter partes hearing

Holding

The duty judge reversed his initial decision refusing to certify the application as urgent after hearing the parties on the limited question of urgency

Reasoning

The respondents' submissions addressed the substantive application rather than the limited question of urgency, leaving the applicant's averments unchallenged. The applicant also indicated that the 2nd respondent had advertised the suit properties for sale by public auction scheduled for 27th November 2025. On that basis the judge found urgency made out and reviewed his earlier order.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The judge reviewed his earlier order refusing certification and certified the application as urgent

    The bench

    #

    One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

    AS
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    Jurisdiction invoked
    Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules; Rule 49(5) of the Court of Appeal Rules (request for inter partes hearing on certification of urgency)

    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.

    To my mind now, the urgency of hearing the application has been made out. I accordingly review my earlier order and now certify the application as urgent.
    p. 2certification of urgency - review of earlier order
    the respondents’ written submissions do not address the limited question of urgency. Rather they address the substantive application. To that extent therefore, they are irrelevant to the issue at hand.
    p. 2submissions must address the framed issue

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    minor

    The ruling does not name the parties' case number, the respondents, or the underlying appeal, and is a single-judge certification ruling rather than a full panel judgment

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Mama Watoto Supermarket v NCBA Ltd & another (Civil Application E141 of 2025) [2025] KECA 1802 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling (application under Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1802/eng@2025-10-30

    Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.