[2018] KESC 67 (KLR)
The Supreme Court unanimously held that no compelling reasons were presented to warrant a review of the Court of Appeal's grant of certification. The Court found that the Court of Appeal was properly guided by established principles in determining that the matter raised issues of general public importance,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KESC 67 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Airtel Networks Kenya Limited; Respondent: Nyutu Agrovet Limited
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Court Station
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Application 15 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review Certification to Appeal to the Supreme Court
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- I Lenaola
- Legal Topics
- Certification to Appeal, Arbitration Awards, Jurisdiction of Courts, Review of Appellate Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Airtel Networks Kenya Limited
Applicant
Nyutu Agrovet Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review Certification to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Supreme Court should review the Court of Appeal's certification allowing an appeal to the Supreme Court.
- 2 Whether the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution.
- 3 Whether there is uncertainty regarding the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over appeals from Section 35 of the Arbitration Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court unanimously held that no compelling reasons were presented to warrant a review of the Court of Appeal's grant of certification. The Court found that the Court of Appeal was properly guided by established principles in determining that the matter raised issues of general public importance, specifically the uncertainty regarding its jurisdiction over appeals from Section 35 of the Arbitration Act. The application for review was therefore dismissed with costs, as the applicant failed to demonstrate any error or misdirection in the certification process or that the threshold for review had been met.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Originating Motion dated 30th June, 2016 is hereby dismissed with costs.
- No compelling reasons have been presented to warrant a review of the grant of certification by the Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
(Coram:Maraga: CJ & President, Ojwang, Wanjala, Njoki & Lenaola, SCJJ)
APPLICATION NO. 15 OF 2016
-BETWEEN-
AIRTEL NETWORKS KENYA LIMITED.........APPLICANT
-AND-
NYUTU AGROVET LIMITED........................RESPONDENT
(Being an application to review the Ruling and Orders of the Court of Appeal in Nairobi (Visram, Azangalala & Sichale JJA) dated 17th June, 2016 in Civil Application No. Sup 3 of 2013 granting certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya against the Ruling and Orders made by the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Karanja, Mwera, Musinga, M’Inoti and Mohamed JJA) delivered on 6th March, 2015 in Civil Appeal (Application) No. 61 of 2012)
RULING
1. UPON PERUSING the Originating Motion application dated 30th June, 2016 and filed on 1st July, 2016, which application is brought under Article 163 (5) of the Constitution; Rules 3(2), 4(5) and 24 (2) of the Supreme Court Rules; seeking a review of the Court of Appeal’s certification, allowing the respondent herein to file an appeal to this Court; AND
2. UPON READING the affidavit of Joy Nyaga dated 30th June, 2016, in support thereof, and the replying affidavit of Muchae Mathare dated 21st November, 2016, in opposition thereto; WE HAVE CONSIDERED the applicant’s case wherein it is contended that the intended appeal to the Supreme Court does not raise matters of general public importance to warrant the intervention of the Supreme Court. The applicant further contends that there are no conflicting decisions of the Court of Appeal regarding the issue in question, such as would entitle the respondent to seek a final pronouncement by this Court.
3. The respondent opposes the application on grounds that, the Court of Appeal granted the certification, having determined that, there exists uncertainty regarding the jurisdiction of that Court, over appeals emanating from Section 35 of the Arbitration Act, which uncertainty can only be conclusively resolved by the Supreme Court. This issue, argues the respondent, transcends the particular interests of the parties to this cause, and has therefore, been appropriately certified by the Appellate Court.
4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION, by a unanimous decision of this Bench, we make the following Orders under Article 163 (5) of the Constitution, and Rule 24 of the Supreme Court Rules 2012 (as amended).
ORDERS REASONS
The Originating Motion dated 30th June, 2016 is hereby dismissed with costs. (a) No compelling reasons have been presented to the Court as to warrant a review of the grant of certification by the Court of Appeal.
(b) In granting the certification, the Court of Appeal was properly guided by the principles set out inHermanus Phillipus Styn v. Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone[2013] eKLR
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 7th Day of December, 2018.
………………………………………….. .…….……………………………………
D. K. MARAGA J. B. OJWANG
CHIEF JUSTICE & PRESIDENT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE SUPREME COURT
…………………………………………………. …..…….………………………………………….
S. C. WANJALA N. S. NDUNGU
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
……………………………………………………..
I. LENAOLA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
I certify that this is atrue copy of the original
REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF KENYA