Dhanjal Investments Limited v Kenindia Assurance Company Limited
The bottom line
#Supreme Court allowed review, ruling that arbitration in insurance contracts can raise issues of general public importance.
What this practically means
#Kicheche Laikipia Camp had a public liability insurance policy with Kenindia Assurance. After a robbery, a dispute arose over payment. The policy required arbitration but didn't say how to start it. When Kenindia refused to appoint an arbitrator, Kicheche appointed one unilaterally and won an award. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision and also refused to let Kicheche appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disagreed, saying the case raises important legal questions about arbitration in insurance contracts that affect many people. It also relaxed the strict 14-day deadline for filing a review, allowing the appeal to proceed.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether this application is fatally defective for being filed out of time
- 2.whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to certify this matter as one of general public importance
Key legal issues
#Whether the application for review was fatally defective for being filed out of time under Rule 24(2) of the Supreme Court Rules.
The application was not fatally defective; the Court has discretion to extend time in the interests of substantive justice, and the fourteen-day rule is not absolute.
The Court noted that Rule 24(2) provides a 14-day period for review where the Court of Appeal has certified a matter. However, the Court held that this rule applies equally where certification is denied, and that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to extend time under Rule 53. Citing Telcom Kenya Limited v. John Ochanda, the Court emphasised that procedural prescriptions should not trump substantive justice. The application was filed 10 days after extraction of the order, and the Court found this a proper case to relax the time limit.
Whether the Court of Appeal erred in declining to certify the intended appeal as one involving matters of general public importance.
Yes, the Court of Appeal erred; the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance, including the legal dimensions of arbitration in insurance contracts, the concept of public liability, and retrospective application of statutes.
The Supreme Court found that the insurance policy, though a private contract, is a standard form contract issued to the public, raising issues of repeated occurrence. The Court identified three specific matters of general public importance: (1) the legal dimensions of arbitration as a recourse in insurance business, (2) the remedy for breach of a contract with an arbitration clause that does not set out the procedure, and (3) the retrospective application of Section 12 of the Arbitration Act. The Court held that these issues transcend the parties and require Supreme Court clarification to develop indigenous jurisprudence.
Whether the applicant's failure to cite Article 163(5) of the Constitution rendered the application defective.
No, the omission was not fatal; the Court can pragmatically interpret Article 163(4)(b) to invoke Article 163(5).
The Court followed its earlier decision in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v. Giovanni G. Ruscone, holding that the failure to cite Article 163(5) is cured by a conjunctive reading of Article 163(4)(b) and Article 163(5). The Court noted that the applicant cited Section 15 of the Supreme Court Act and Article 163(4)(b), which together invoked the review jurisdiction. The Court emphasised the constitutional imperative of access to justice under Article 48 and the interpretative principles of Article 259.
Legal principles established
#- The Supreme Court can review a Court of Appeal decision that either grants or denies certification for appeal.
- The 14-day time limit for filing a review application is not absolute and can be relaxed for substantive justice.
- A private insurance contract can raise matters of general public importance if it involves standard terms and recurring legal issues.
- Failure to cite the exact constitutional article for review is not fatal if the application invokes the correct jurisdiction.
- Arbitration clauses in insurance policies that lack procedural steps can raise jurisprudential questions needing Supreme Court clarification.
Court orders
#- 1.The Court of Appeal decision of 22nd May, 2014 is set aside.
- 2.The applicant's Originating Motion dated 8th October, 2014 is allowed.
- 3.The applicant is hereby granted leave to file its appeal before this Court, in accordance with the Rules of the Supreme Court.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A private contract between parties may bring to the fore a point of law that, upon its evaluation, may be found to entail such jurisprudential perspectives as will apply to other cases—thus making it a matter of general public importance.
while this Court would not underemphasize the importance of adherence to its Rules, we are of the opinion that this is a clear case where the substantive justice of the case requires a relative lightening-up of the prescription that the application for review should be filed within fourteen days.
From the pleadings and submissions before this Court, it is clear to us that the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Review jurisdiction and time limits
When seeking review of a Court of Appeal certification decision, you can rely on Article 163(5) even if you cited Article 163(4)(b). The 14-day rule under Rule 24(2) is not rigid; the Court may extend time for substantive justice. File promptly but know that delays of a few days may be excused if justified.
Insurance arbitration clauses
If your insurance policy has an arbitration clause that does not specify how to start arbitration, the courts may still enforce it. However, unilateral appointment of an arbitrator without the other party's consent may be challenged. Ensure your policy clearly sets out the arbitration procedure to avoid disputes.
Access to Supreme Court review
If the Court of Appeal refuses to let you appeal a case that affects many people (general public importance), you can ask the Supreme Court to review that refusal. The Court will consider whether your case raises important legal questions beyond just your private dispute, such as how arbitration works in standard insurance contracts.
Frequently asked questions
#What is a matter of general public importance in Kenya?+
It is a legal issue that goes beyond the parties involved and affects the public or requires clarification of the law. For example, how arbitration clauses in standard insurance policies should be interpreted can be a matter of general public importance.
Can you appeal a Court of Appeal decision to the Supreme Court in Kenya?+
Yes, but only if the Court of Appeal certifies that the case involves a matter of general public importance, or if the Supreme Court grants leave. If the Court of Appeal refuses certification, you can apply to the Supreme Court for review.
What is the time limit for filing a review in the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
The Supreme Court Rules say you must file within 14 days after the Court of Appeal's decision. However, the Court can extend this time if it is necessary to do justice. In this case, the Court relaxed the deadline because the delay was short and the issues were important.
Does an arbitration clause in an insurance policy need to specify the procedure in Kenya?+
Yes, it is advisable. If the clause does not set out how to appoint an arbitrator or start arbitration, disputes can arise. The Supreme Court has said that such clauses can raise important legal questions that may need clarification, especially when they appear in standard contracts used by many people.
Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Insurance Training & Education Trust v Gathondu (As Administrator of the Estate of the Late Thumbi Kariuki) & 5 others[2025] KESC 58 (KLR)5 Sept 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dhanjal Investments Limited v Kenindia Assurance Company Limited", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Application 39 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2016/15/eng@2016-05-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.