Peter Amolo Akumu Gould v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2016] KECA 636 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let a dismissed KCB employee take his unfair termination case to Kenya's Supreme Court, confirming private employment disputes rarely qualify.
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 Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to extend time for filing a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court
- 2.Whether the intended appeal involves a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to extend time for filing notice of appeal to the Supreme Court
Only the Supreme Court, under Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012, can extend time for filing a notice of appeal to that Court; the Court of Appeal lacks that jurisdiction.
Rules 30(3) and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012 provide that a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court must be lodged within fourteen days and that the Supreme Court itself may extend time. The applicant had filed no notice of appeal and time had lapsed. The court held that notwithstanding Article 159's command against procedural technicalities, it could not extend the time; the applicant must apply to the Supreme Court itself.
Whether the intended appeal involves a matter of general public importance
The employment dispute between the applicant and the bank is a private contractual matter that does not transcend the litigating parties and therefore does not meet the Article 163(4)(b) threshold.
Applying the principles in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone as adopted by the Supreme Court, the court held that the dispute rests on a contract of employment between two private persons, the law on such contracts is settled, and the applicant raised no new issues of jurisprudential moment. Certification was refused and the application dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction to extend time for filing a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court; only the Supreme Court may do so under Rule 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012
- A matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b) must transcend the circumstances of the particular case and have a significant bearing on the public interest
Court orders
#- 1.The application for certification of a matter of general public importance is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Civil Appeal No. 247 of 2009
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 - application for certification that an intended appeal involves a matter of general public importance
Relief refused
#Certification that the intended appeal to the Supreme Court involves a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
The dispute is a private employment contract matter that does not transcend the litigating parties
Extension of time to file notice of appeal to the Supreme Court
Only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to extend time for filing a notice of appeal to that Court under rules 30(3) and 53 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
Accordingly, this application is without merit, and we order that it be and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
As can be gleaned from rules 30(3) and 53, which we have cited above, it is only the Supreme Court that can extend the time within which to file a notice of appeal where a party intends to appeal from this Court to the Supreme Court.
The matter between the parties herein is premised on a contract of employment between two private persons, the determination of which will not have a bearing on public policy or on any other party beyond the litigants.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the same Steyn litigation with inconsistent spellings and years of citation, one as a Court of Appeal decision and one as a Supreme Court decision
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Peter Amolo Akumu Gould v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2016] KECA 636 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Civil Application Sup. 5 of 2015 (UR 4/2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2016/636/eng@2016-04-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.