Bernard Njeru Kinyua v Kenya Tea Development Agency [2018] KECA 430 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let a former KTDA employee take his private employment dispute to the Supreme Court, confirming Kenya's highest court is reserved for matters 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 should be granted leave/certification to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
- 2.Whether the matter raises an issue of general public importance entitling the applicant to be certified to appeal to the Supreme Court
- 3.Whether the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2015 should be set aside
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant's intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
It does not; the dispute was of a private nature between the applicant and the respondent
The court reviewed the certification principles in Greenfields Investments and Koinange Investment and Development, then examined the motion and submissions. The underlying dispute concerned the applicant's own employment, defamation award and multiplicity of personal suits. Because the issues involved only the applicant and the respondent privately, no general public importance arose and certification could not issue.
Whether the multiplicity of suits by the applicant justified any further relief
No; the applicant was advised to end the litigation
The court noted the applicant had pursued numerous suits — a defamation claim, several employment-related suits and appeals — all of which failed save the defamation case in which he was awarded damages. The court held that continuing litigation clogs the court system and prejudices the respondent, and that the applicant should accept the damages award he had already received.
Legal principles established
#- Certification under Article 163(4)(b) is a genuine filtering mechanism; only matters of general public importance, not ordinary private disputes however complex, may proceed to the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court is not a forum for the correction of errors in the application of settled law
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated application for extension of time/leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya
- Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2015
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 read with Article 22(1) and (d) and rule 4 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for certification/leave to appeal to the Supreme Court)
Relief refused
#Leave/certification to appeal to the Supreme Court
No issue of general public importance was demonstrated; the dispute between the parties was private in nature
Setting aside of the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2015
The applicant had litigated the same issues in a multiplicity of unsuccessful suits and was not entitled to anything more than the defamation damages already awarded
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the respondent ("We award costs of the same 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.
It would be a perversion of the law as… unambiguously spelt out in the Constitution, were certifications to become fare for ordinary cases no matter how complex, that have for ages been concluded with finality in this Court.
the requirement for certification under Article 163 (4) (b) is a genuine filtering process to ensure that only appeals with elements of general public importance reach the Supreme Court
Looking at the motion before us and the submissions made there is no issue of general public importance that can entitle the applicant to be granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The application fails and we dismiss it. We award costs of the same to the respondent.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bernard Njeru Kinyua v Kenya Tea Development Agency [2018] KECA 430 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Civil Application No. NYR. 96 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2018/430/eng@2018-07-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.