Okello v Rombo
The bottom line
#Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear succession appeals unless they involve constitutional interpretation or are certified as public importance.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court struck out an appeal in a family inheritance dispute because the appellant did not follow the correct procedure. The appellant tried to argue that the case involved constitutional rights, but the Court said the underlying matter was a private succession issue. To appeal to the Supreme Court, the case must come from a Court of Appeal decision on constitutional interpretation, or be certified as a matter of general public importance. Neither condition was met here.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal.
Key legal issues
#Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Article 163(4)(a) or (b) of the Constitution where the underlying dispute is a succession cause and no certification has been obtained.
The Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction because the appeal does not arise from a Court of Appeal decision on constitutional interpretation or application, and no certification of general public importance was sought or obtained.
The Court held that jurisdiction is foundational and must be demonstrated by the appellant. The appellant invoked constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 21, 50) but the underlying matter was a succession cause, not a constitutional interpretation or application case from the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal only dismissed an application for enlargement of time, leaving no substantive appeal. No certification under Article 163(4)(b) was sought. Therefore, neither jurisdictional pathway was satisfied.
Whether the appellant's invocation of constitutional rights can transform a private succession dispute into a matter of constitutional interpretation or general public importance.
No. Merely invoking constitutional provisions to access the Supreme Court does not create jurisdiction where the underlying dispute is private and factual.
The Court noted that the appellant invoked Articles 14(1), 21(1), and 50(1) of the Constitution 'to clothe his petition as an issue of constitutional interpretation and application purely to access this Court.' The Court rejected this as an impermissible attempt to circumvent jurisdictional requirements, stating it 'cannot countenance judicial innovations or crafts designed to unsettle well-established principles of law.'
Legal principles established
#- To appeal under Article 163(4)(a), the case must originate from a Court of Appeal decision on constitutional interpretation or application.
- Certification under Article 163(4)(b) is a genuine filtering process for appeals of general public importance.
- Merely invoking constitutional provisions does not create Supreme Court jurisdiction if the underlying dispute is private and factual.
- A party must pursue constitutional and general public importance issues separately, following their own procedural requirements.
- Jurisdiction is foundational and must be demonstrated by the appellant; the court cannot assume it.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 26th February 2026 and filed on 13th March 2026 by the respondent is upheld
- 2.The petition of appeal dated 6th November, 2025, filed on 18th February 2026, is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 3.The sum of Kshs. 6,000/- deposited as security for costs upon lodging the appeal be refunded to the depositor
- 4.There shall be no orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Costs
There shall be no orders 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.
the requirement for certification by both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court is a genuine filtering process to ensure that only appeals with elements of general public importance issues reach the Supreme Court
An appeal under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution must originate from a Court of Appeal case where issues of contestation revolved around the interpretation or application of the Constitution
the underlying succession dispute raises neither issues of constitutional interpretation and application nor matters of general public importance, but factual evidential material. Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal under Article 163(4)(a) and 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Avoid jurisdictional traps in constitutional appeals
When appealing a private dispute (e.g., succession) to the Supreme Court, do not rely solely on invoking constitutional rights. You must first establish that the Court of Appeal decided on constitutional interpretation/application (Article 163(4)(a)) or obtain a certification of general public importance (Article 163(4)(b)). Filing without satisfying either pathway will result in the appeal being struck out. Ensure your notice of appeal and petition clearly demonstrate the jurisdictional basis.
Succession disputes rarely reach Supreme Court
If your business is involved in an estate or succession matter, be aware that the Supreme Court is unlikely to hear the case unless it involves a clear constitutional question or has been certified as a matter of general public importance. Framing a private dispute as a constitutional issue will not create jurisdiction. Plan your litigation strategy accordingly, and consider finality at the Court of Appeal level.
Don't skip the certification step
Individuals appealing to the Supreme Court must first get the Court of Appeal to certify that the case involves a matter of general public importance. Without that certification, the Supreme Court will not hear your appeal. This case shows that even if you mention constitutional rights, the Court will look at the real nature of the dispute. If you are in a private succession fight, you likely cannot appeal to the Supreme Court.
Frequently asked questions
#Can I appeal a succession dispute directly to the Supreme Court in Kenya?+
No, you cannot. The Supreme Court only hears appeals that involve constitutional interpretation or application, or that are certified as matters of general public importance. A succession dispute is a private matter, and simply calling it a constitutional issue will not give the Court jurisdiction.
What is certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Kenyan Constitution?+
Certification is a formal decision by the Court of Appeal (or the Supreme Court) that an appeal raises a matter of general public importance. Without this certification, the Supreme Court will not hear the appeal. It is a filter to ensure only significant issues reach the highest court.
Why was the appeal in George Omolo Rombo struck out by the Supreme Court?+
The appellant tried to appeal a succession dispute by invoking constitutional rights, but the underlying case was a private family matter. The Court of Appeal had only dismissed an application for more time, not decided on constitutional issues. The appellant also did not obtain certification of general public importance. Therefore, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction.
What happens if I file an appeal to the Supreme Court without jurisdiction in Kenya?+
Your appeal will be struck out. The Court may order a refund of any security for costs you deposited, but you will not be awarded costs. You must then start over with the correct procedure, such as obtaining certification from the Court of Appeal first.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okello v Rombo", Case Analysis (2026). Petition E048 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/53/eng@2026-07-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.