Kenyan case law

Oyatsi v Nzoia Sugar Company Limited (Civil Application E032 of 2023) [2023] KESC 103 (KLR) (8 December 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The court held that an applicant had to show that the additional, new and fresh evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial, was not within his knowledge, or could not have been produced at the time of the suit or petition due to the circumstances beyond him.

Kenya Airports Authority v Otieno, Ragot & Company Advocates (Petition (Application) E011 of 2023) [2023] KESC 104 (KLR) (8 December 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The Supreme Court allowed the late filed submissions and granted the respondent 14 days to file supplementary submissions.

Sundowner Lodge Limited v Kenya Tourist Development Corporation (Application E039 of 2023) [2023] KESC 100 (KLR) (8 December 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The Court of Appeal's decision to decline certification was correct. The issue of availability of general damages as a remedy for breach of contract does not warrant certification as involving matters of general public importance.

Everton Coal Enterprises Limited v Karanja & 5 others (Application E026 of 2023) [2023] KESC 98 (KLR) (10 November 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The Supreme Court held that the original dispute between the 1st to 4th respondents and the 5th and 6th respondents having been settled in a judgment rendered, there were no proceedings to which the applicant could properly join four years later when the ruling by the first bench of the Court of Appeal was rendered.

Senate & 3 others v Speaker of the National Assembly & 10 others (Petition (Application) 19 (E027) of 2021) [2023] KESC 95 (KLR) (10 November 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The court had jurisdiction to extend the time limited by either the Supreme Court Rules or by a decision of the court.

Republic v Mwangi; Equality Now & another (Intended Interested Party); Initiative for Strategic Litigation (ISLA) & 3 others (Intended Amicus Curiae) (Petition (Application) E018 of 2023) [2023] KESC 99 (KLR) (Civ) (10 November 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The Supreme Court allowed the application for admission of the joint intended amici curiae, but limited their participation to the filing of an amici brief.

Nairobi Bottlers Limited v Ndung’u & another (Application E030, E034 & E038 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2023] KESC 96 (KLR) (10 November 2023) (Ruling)

Maina v Macharia & 5 others (Application E035 of 2023) [2023] KESC 97 (KLR) (10 November 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The notice of appeal by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents is deemed to have been withdrawn due to default in filing the appeal within the prescribed timeline.

Dari Limited & 5 others v East African Development Bank (Application E017 of 2023) [2023] KESC 93 (KLR) (7 November 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The application is dismissed as it falls short of the exceptional circumstances required for the Supreme Court to review its decision.

Dari Limited & 5 others v East African Development Bank (Petition E012 of 2023) [2023] KESC 94 (KLR) (7 November 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The court held that the petitioners did not have a specific form or content of a response to a petition filed at the Supreme Court, and that the prayer to file a rejoinder is disallowed.

County Assembly of Migori v Aluochier & 2 others (Petition (Application) E015 of 2023) [2023] KESC 92 (KLR) (Civ) (27 October 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The petition of appeal and the cross appeal are not properly before the Supreme Court and are hereby struck out.

Dari Limited & 5 others v East African Development Bank (Petition (Application) E012 of 2023 & Application E017 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2023] KESC 90 (KLR) (6 October 2023) (Ruling)

Kabuito Contractors Ltd v Attorney General (Civil Application E025 of 2023) [2023] KESC 89 (KLR) (Civ) (6 October 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The order of the single judge deeming the notice of appeal as withdrawn was upheld.

Janmohamed S.C (Suing as the Executrix of the Estate of the Late H.E. Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi) & another v Lagat & 4 others (Petition 17 (E021) & 24 (E027) of 2022 (Consolidated)) [2023] KESC 85 (KLR) (Civ) (6 October 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The application was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the process of court.

Mbugua & another (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Joseph Kiarie Mbugua & another) v Timber Manufacturers & Dealers Limited (Civil Application E019 of 2023) [2023] KESC 86 (KLR) (6 October 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The Supreme Court held that it was not mandatory for appellants to obtain certification of a matter as one of general importance before filing a notice of appeal. The application for review was dismissed.

Kiarie v Dyer & Blair Investment Bank Limited & another (Application E023 of 2023) [2023] KESC 87 (KLR) (6 October 2023) (Ruling)

✦ An intending appellant that sought grant of certification before the Court of Appeal must demonstrate that the issue to be canvassed transcended the circumstances of the particular case and had a significant bearing on public interest; that the appeal raised a substantial point of law the determination of which would have a significant bearing on public interest; that the question for determination had risen through the judicial hierarchy and had been the subject of judicial determination; and that there had been uncertainty in the law which required resolution.

Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited (Now Absa Kenya PLC) v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes (Large Taxpayer’s Office); Kenya Bankers Association & another (Interested Parties) (Petition (Application) 12 (E014) of 2022) [2023] KESC 91 (KLR) (6 October 2023) (Ruling)

✦ Application dismissed as none of the conditions for the grant of leave to adduce additional evidence had been satisfied.

Mwambeja Ranching Company Limited & another v Kenya National Capital Corporation (Application E022 of 2023) [2023] KESC 88 (KLR) (Civ) (6 October 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The motion lacks merit as the applicant has not satisfactorily highlighted any issues, the determination of which would transcend the circumstances of the matter at hand so as to justify a review of the Court of Appeal’s ruling denying certification. The applicant opted for review of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, in effect forfeiting his right of appeal at that instance.

Khan v International Commercial Company (K) Ltd (Petition (Application) E009 & E010 of 2023 (Consolidated)) [2023] KESC 84 (KLR) (3 October 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The Supreme Court declined to issue an order staying proceedings since the substance of the appeal was before the court for determination.

Amollo v Wilson (Application E014 of 2023) [2023] KESC 77 (KLR) (Civ) (22 September 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The Supreme Court did not have the jurisdiction to determine the application for certification for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court as it had not been lodged and determined by the Court of Appeal.

Outa v Odoto & 3 others (Petition 6 of 2014) [2023] KESC 75 (KLR) (22 September 2023) (Ruling)

✦ Item No. 1 taxed at Kshs.6 million is set aside and substituted with a sum of Kshs. 1 million

Sanitam Services (EA) Limited v Nyaga & another (Application E016 of 2023) [2023] KESC 81 (KLR) (Civ) (22 September 2023) (Ruling)

✦ A mere apprehension of a miscarriage of justice is not a proper basis for granting certication for an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited v Santowels Limited (Petition (Application) E005 of 2023) [2023] KESC 82 (KLR) (22 September 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The motion to be joined as an amicus curiae was dismissed due to unreasonable delay.

Erdemann Property Limited v Safaricom Staff Pension Scheme Registered Trustees & 3 others; Everest Limited & another (Interested Parties) (Petition (Application) E013 of 2023) [2023] KESC 76 (KLR) (22 September 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The notice of appeal was defective for failing to comply with rule 37(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, and the record of appeal was incomplete.

Member of Parliament Balambala Constituency v Abdi & 7 others (Petition 21 (E023) of 2020) [2023] KESC 80 (KLR) (22 September 2023) (Ruling)

✦ The Supreme Court held that it would only review its decision if it was obtained by fraud or deceit, where the court issuing it was not competent, where the court was misled to enter into a consent or where the decision was issued based on a repealed statute or a deliberately concealed statutory provision. The court dismissed the application with costs.