[2018] KESC 53 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI

(Coram: Maraga, CJ & President; Ojwang; Wanjala; Njoki; & Lenaola, SCJJ)

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3 OF 2015

KANYI KAROKI......................................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

KARATINA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL........................1ST RESPONDENT

THOMAS THINWA KAROKI...................................2ND RESPONDENT

(Being an application for review of the decision of the Court of Appeal (Visram, Koome & Odek, JJA) given at Nyeri on 1st October, 2014 dismissing the applicant’s application for certification that the matter herein is one of general public importance warranting a further appeal to the Supreme Court).

R U L I N G

[1]The litigation giving rise to this application emanates from the decision of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Nyeri (PMCC No. 231 of 1994) awarding the applicant damages for personal injuries he suffered in a road traffic accident. The respondents were allowed to file their appeal against that decision out of time but the applicant has since May 1999 challenged the competence of that appeal. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have dismissed the applicant’s claims.

[2] In its ruling delivered at Nyeri on 1st October 2014, the Court of Appeal (Visram, Koome & Odek, JJA) declined to grant the applicant certification to appeal to this Court against its decision delivered on 17th June 2014. On 1st April 2015, the applicant file this application under Article 163(4)(b) and (5) of the Constitution; Section 15 of the Supreme Court Act, 2011 as well as Rules 24, 31(1), 35(3) and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012 seeking a review of the Appellate Court’s said decision declining to grant certification.

[3] The application is premised on the grounds that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the matter the applicant seeks a decision of this Court is one of general public importance which transcends the circumstances of this particular case.

[4]As this Court stated in the case of Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone, Sup. Ct. Appl. No. 4 of 2012 [2013] eKLR,a decision it had also made inPeter Oduor Ngoge v. Hon. Francis Ole Kaparo & 5 Others [2012] eKLR (Supreme Court Petition No. 2 of 2012)and reiterated in many other subsequent decisions, applicant seeking such certification “must satisfy the Court that the issue to be canvassed on appeal is one the determination of which transcends the circumstances of the particular case….” If it is a point of law, he “must demonstrate that such point is a substantial one, the determination of which will have a significant bearing on the public interest.”

[5] Upon consideration of the facts in this matter alongside the said principles governing the grant of certification to appeal to this Court, we agree with the written submissions by counsel for the respondent and find that the issue in this matter of the competence of the respondent’s appeal in the High Court is not one of general public importance which transcends the circumstances of this particular case. It does not therefore meet the criteria set out in the above cases. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this application and we accordingly dismiss it with costs to the respondents.

DATEDandDELIVEREDatNAIROBIthis18th dayofJuly, 2018

…………………………………………………….. …………..………………………………………

D.K. MARAGA J. B. OJWANG

CHIEF JUSTICE & PRESIDENT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME

OF THE SUPREME COURT COURT

…………………………………………. ………………………………………

S. C. WANJALA N.S. NDUNG’U

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME

COURT COURT

…………..……………………….

I. LENAOLA

JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME

COURT

I certify that this is a

true copy of the original

REGISTRAR

SUPREME COURT OF KENYA