Kiamba & 3 others v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & another
The bottom line
#Supreme Court cannot hear appeals that only involve statutory interpretation, not constitutional interpretation.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court struck out an appeal from three people who lost their properties in forfeiture proceedings under the Anti-Corruption Act. The court said it only hears appeals that challenge how the Constitution was interpreted or applied. This case was about applying the forfeiture law, not the Constitution. So the Supreme Court had no power to hear it.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution to hear and determine the Petition of Appeal and the application for stay of execution.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution to hear an appeal from a Court of Appeal decision in forfeiture of unexplained assets proceedings under the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) because the appeal does not involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution; it concerns the application of statutory provisions (sections 26, 55, and 56 of ACECA) and the threshold of forfeiture.
The court applied the principles from Lawrence Nduttu & 6000 others v Kenya Breweries Ltd & another, which require that an appeal under Article 163(4)(a) must challenge the Court of Appeal's interpretation or application of the Constitution. The court found that the gist of the applicants' appeal involved the proper interpretation of sections 55 and 56 of ACECA and whether the threshold of forfeiture had been met. Neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal attempted to interpret or apply those sections in the context of their constitutionality. The court also relied on Stanley Mombo Amuti v Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission, where it held that unexplained wealth proceedings concern the application of ACECA, not constitutional interpretation, and that mere reference to constitutional principles is insufficient. The court concluded that the issues raised by the applicants were not sufficient to trigger its jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a).
Legal principles established
#- An appeal under Article 163(4)(a) must challenge the Court of Appeal's interpretation or application of the Constitution.
- Mere reference to constitutional principles or raising constitutional issues with limited bearing is not enough to invoke Supreme Court jurisdiction.
- Unexplained wealth forfeiture proceedings under ACECA concern statutory application, not constitutional interpretation.
- The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction if the gist of the appeal is about statutory provisions and forfeiture thresholds.
- Precedents from Lawrence Nduttu and Stanley Mombo Amuti apply: constitutional interpretation must be central to the appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition of Appeal No. E004 of 2024 dated February 19, 2024 and filed on March 4, 2024, be and is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- 2.The notice of motion dated February 22, 2024 and filed on March 4, 2024, be and is hereby struck out.
- 3.The sum of Kshs. 6,000/= deposited as security for costs in the appeal herein be refunded to the appellant.
- 4.There shall be no order as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal No 464 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Conservatory and/or interim orders staying execution of the judgment dated February 9, 2024 in Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No 464 of 2019
The court found it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs.
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.
it is our considered view that the issues raised by the applicants are not sufficient to trigger this court's jurisdiction under article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution and neither the Petition of Appeal nor the present Motion are properly before us and we uphold the 1st respondent's submissions on the issue of jurisdiction.
The Petition of Appeal No. E004 of 2024 dated February 19, 2024 and filed on March 4, 2024, be and is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction;
The notice of motion dated February 22, 2024 and filed on March 4, 2024, be and is hereby struck out;
There shall be no order as to costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frame appeals to highlight constitutional interpretation
When appealing forfeiture cases to the Supreme Court, ensure the core issue is how the Court of Appeal interpreted or applied a constitutional provision. Simply adding constitutional language to a statutory argument will not create jurisdiction. Use precedents like Lawrence Nduttu to show the constitutional question was central to the lower court's decision.
Asset forfeiture appeals limited to statutory grounds
If your business faces unexplained wealth forfeiture under ACECA, the Supreme Court will not hear appeals that only challenge how the forfeiture law was applied. You must show the Court of Appeal misinterpreted the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the High Court and Court of Appeal are the final forums for such disputes.
Property rights arguments may not reach Supreme Court
Individuals who lose property in forfeiture cases cannot automatically appeal to the Supreme Court by claiming their constitutional rights were violated. The court will check whether the lower courts actually interpreted constitutional provisions like Article 40 (property) or Article 50 (fair hearing). If the case was decided purely on statutory grounds, the Supreme Court will not hear it.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I appeal a forfeiture order to the Supreme Court in Kenya?+
Only if the Court of Appeal's decision involved interpreting or applying the Constitution. If the case was decided purely under the Anti-Corruption Act, the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction. This was confirmed in the Jimmy Mutuku Kiamba case.
What is Article 163(4)(a) of the Kenyan Constitution?+
It gives the Supreme Court power to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal if the case involves the interpretation or application of the Constitution. The appeal must challenge how the Constitution was used, not just raise constitutional issues on the side.
Does the Supreme Court hear all constitutional issues in Kenya?+
No. The Supreme Court only hears appeals that directly challenge the Court of Appeal's interpretation or application of the Constitution. If the constitutional issue is minor or not central to the case, the court will strike out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
What happened in the Jimmy Mutuku Kiamba case in Kenya?+
Three people lost their properties under the Anti-Corruption Act. They tried to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing their constitutional rights were violated. The Supreme Court struck out the appeal because the case was about applying the forfeiture law, not interpreting the Constitution.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiamba & 3 others v Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission & another", Case Analysis (2024). Petition (Application) E004 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2024/19/eng@2024-05-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.