[2013] KESC 11 (KLR)

[2013] KESC 11 (KLR)

The Supreme Court (majority) held that while it has jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeal's refusal to certify a matter as of general public importance under Article 163(5) of the Constitution, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the issues raised transcended the private contractual dispute between the parties or had a significant bearing on the public interest. The dispute concerned the enforcement of a commission agreement and the award of damages, which were matters of fact and private law, not raising any substantial question of law of general public importance. The Court clarified the principles for determining what constitutes a matter of general public importance,...

Citation
[2013] KESC 11 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hermanus Phillipus Steyn; Respondent: Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone
Court
Supreme Court
Court Station
Supreme Court of Kenya
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
23 May 2013
Case Number
Application 4 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Refusal to Certify Matter as of General Public Importance
Outcome
application dismissed (majority); costs to respondent
Judges
MK Ibrahim, JB Ojwang
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Certification of General Public Importance, Commission Contracts, Damages Award, Agency Law, Appellate Jurisdiction
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Certification of General Public Importance Commission Contracts Damages Award Agency Law Appellate Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hermanus Phillipus Steyn

Applicant

Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Ruling on Application for Review of Refusal to Certify Matter as of General Public Importance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeal's refusal to certify a matter as of general public importance under Article 163(5) of the Constitution?
  2. 2 What constitutes a 'matter of general public importance' for purposes of certification to appeal to the Supreme Court?
  3. 3 Does the dispute over a commission agreement between private parties raise issues of general public importance warranting certification?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court (majority) held that while it has jurisdiction to review the Court of Appeal's refusal to certify a matter as of general public importance under Article 163(5) of the Constitution, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the issues raised transcended the private contractual dispute between the parties or had a significant bearing on the public interest. The dispute concerned the enforcement of a commission agreement and the award of damages, which were matters of fact and private law, not raising any substantial question of law of general public importance. The Court clarified the principles for determining what constitutes a matter of general public importance,...

Court Disposition

application dismissed (majority); costs to respondent

Orders

  • The application for certification as a matter of general public importance is dismissed.
  • The decision of the Court of Appeal is affirmed.