Richard Buluma Wedodo & another v Esau Namulanda & another [2016] KECA 38 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to send a land dispute to the Supreme Court because the case was personal to the applicant, not a matter of general public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has demonstrated that the intended appeal to the Supreme Court raises a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#What constitutes a matter of general public importance for purposes of Article 163(4)(b) certification
The matter must be public in nature, transcend the particular case, and where a point of law is involved, the applicant must show uncertainty in the law and that clarification serves the common good; a merely difficult question of law is insufficient.
The Court applied the two-step Hermanus Philipus Steyn formulation previously adopted by the Supreme Court. The applicant's grievances - that the Court of Appeal resolved only one issue and that he was denied costs in various proceedings - were personal to his dispute over a land boundary and costs, and did not transcend his circumstances. Accordingly none of the requirements for certification were met and the application was dismissed.
Legal principles established
#- A matter certified for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)(b) must be of public importance that transcends the circumstances of the particular case; a difficult or uncertain point of law must be shown and its clarification must serve the common good.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (judgment sought to be appealed to the Supreme Court)
- Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2013
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Court of Appeal judgment in Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2013
The applicant failed to demonstrate that the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance; his complaints concerned costs and unresolved issues personal to his case.
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents.
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.
We find this application lacking in merit and dismiss it with costs to the respondents.
The importance of the matter must be public in nature and must transcend the circumstances of the particular case so as to have a more general significance.
Where the matter involves a point of law, the applicant must demonstrate that there is uncertainty as to the point of law and that it is for the common good that such law should be clarified
Issues in the judgment
#The coram heading spells the court as 'COOURT OF APPEAL', a typographical error in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Richard Buluma Wedodo & another v Esau Namulanda & another [2016] KECA 38 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Application No. 62 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/38/eng@2016-12-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.