[2018] KESC 23 (KLR)

[2018] KESC 23 (KLR)

The Supreme Court found that the constitutionality of Section 62 of the Kenya Ports Authority Act was directly challenged and determined by the Court of Appeal. This necessarily involved the interpretation and application of the Constitution, thereby properly invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KESC 23 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Modern Holdings (E. A) Ltd; Respondent: Kenya Ports Authority
Court
Supreme Court
Court Station
Supreme Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 20 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Petition / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
PM Mwilu, MK Ibrahim, JB Ojwang, SC Wanjala, NS Ndungu
Legal Topics
Appellate Jurisdiction, Constitutional Interpretation, Certification of Appeals, Jurisdiction of High Court
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Appellate Jurisdiction Constitutional Interpretation Certification of Appeals Jurisdiction of High Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Modern Holdings (E. A) Ltd

Appellant

Kenya Ports Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution to entertain the appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings before the High Court and Court of Appeal involved interpretation or application of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether leave or certification was required under Article 163(4)(b) for the appeal to be entertained.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found that the constitutionality of Section 62 of the Kenya Ports Authority Act was directly challenged and determined by the Court of Appeal. This necessarily involved the interpretation and application of the Constitution, thereby properly invoking the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a). The application to strike out the petition of appeal and record of appeal was therefore dismissed, as the appeal was competently before the Supreme Court without the need for certification under Article 163(4)(b).

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to strike out the petition of appeal and record of appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the appeal.