Johmat Distributors Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya
The bottom line
#Kenya's Supreme Court dismissed Johmat Distributors' attempt to revive its appeal, confirming you cannot introduce new arguments at review or dress up private disputes as public-interest cases.
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 questions raised for the first time in the review application are properly before the Court
- 2.Whether the issues raised meet the threshold for certification as matters of general public importance under article 163(4)(b)
Key legal issues
#Whether new questions raised for the first time in a review application are properly before the Supreme Court
Three questions raised for the first time in the review were not properly before the Court, as review cannot introduce arguments with no footing in the determinations below.
The Court applied its own decision in Thika Coffee Mills, holding that a review application must be confined to the determinations of the superior courts below. Introducing fresh questions would draw the Court into original rather than appellate jurisdiction under article 163(4)(b). The three new questions were therefore struck out as improperly before the Court.
Whether the remaining issues meet the certification threshold under article 163(4)(b)
They do not: the apprehension of future misuse of undertakings is speculative; the juridical character of a mareva injunction is settled; the costs discretion is fact-specific; and constitutional framing does not elevate fact-specific complaints.
Applying Hermanus Phillipus Steyn and Malcolm Bell, the Court found the alleged risk to future undertakings a mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice; no conflicting decisions or legal uncertainty were shown; the costs question was a finding of fact and discretion; and the articles 40 and 50 grievances identified no unsettled constitutional principle bearing on the public at large.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review in the Supreme Court is not a vehicle for advancing arguments that have no footing in the determinations of the superior courts below.
- Dissatisfaction with how settled law was applied to particular facts cannot be elevated into a matter of general public importance by constitutional framing alone.
- The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under article 163(4)(b) is not to be invoked merely to rectify errors in the application of settled law.
Court orders
#- 1.The originating motion dated 17th December 2025 and filed on 11th March 2026 be and is hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal, Nairobi
- Civil Appeal (Application) No. E263 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b), 159(2)(a),(d)&(e) and 259(1) of the Constitution; rule 33(1) of the Supreme Court Rules; section 15B of the Supreme Court Act, 2011; sections 3(2), 3A & 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act
Relief refused
#Review of the Court of Appeal's refusal to certify the intended appeal as raising matters of general public importance
The issues raised do not transcend the circumstances of the dispute or bear significantly on the public interest
Costs
Costs are awarded to the 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.
an application for review is not a vehicle for advancing arguments that have no footing in the determinations of the superior courts below
Dissatisfaction with how settled law was applied to particular facts cannot be elevated into a matter of general public importance by constitutional framing alone.
The originating motion dated 17th December 2025 and filed on 11th March 2026 be and is hereby dismissed.
Costs are awarded to the respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Johmat Distributors Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya", Case Analysis (2026). Application E040 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/58/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.