Kwanza Estates Ltd v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology (Civil Application E053 of 2023) [2023] KECA 1516 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal has certified a Covid-19 lease dispute for Supreme Court review, deciding whether the pandemic counts as force majeure affecting contracts nationwide.
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 application for certification is merited
- 2.Whether the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance warranting certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Whether the Covid-19 pandemic and its effect on contractual obligations, including whether Covid-19 is a force majeure event and whether frustration fully or partially discharges contractual obligations, constitutes a matter of general public importance.
Yes; the issue transcends the parties and bears significantly on the public interest, warranting certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The court considered the nine questions identified by the applicant, which concisely set out the specific elements of general public importance. The effect of Covid-19 on contractual obligations transcends the applicant, the pandemic having affected the general public. There is also a substantial question of law requiring the Supreme Court to settle the jurisprudence in light of divergent comparative decisions cited.
Legal principles established
#- For certification under Article 163(4)(b), the intending appellant must show that the issue transcends the circumstances of the particular case, has a significant bearing on the public interest, and raises a substantial point of law that arose and was determined in the courts below.
- Certification is a genuine filtering process; only appeals with elements of general public importance reach the Supreme Court.
- A matter of general public importance is a matter of law or fact whose impact and consequences are substantial, broad-based, transcend the litigation interests of the parties, and bear upon the public interest.
Court orders
#- 1.Certification that the intended appeal to the Supreme Court involves a matter of general public importance
- 2.Grant of leave to the applicant to appeal against the judgment delivered on 16th June 2023 to the Supreme Court
- 3.The applicant to have the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal at Nakuru (the impugned judgment under certification; the respondent's appeal from the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru)
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution; Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 41(2), 42(b), 44(1) and 45 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
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 therefore certify the same as such, and grant leave to the Applicant to appeal against the judgment delivered herein on 16ᵗʰ June 2023 to the Supreme Court.
In the result, the application is allowed. As costs follow the event, the applicant shall have the costs of this application.
for a case to be certified as one involving a matter of general public importance, the intending appellant must satisfy the Court that the issue to be canvassed on appeal is one the determination of which transcends the circumstances of the particular case, and has a significant bearing on the public interest;
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the parties in the coram or caption; the applicant is identified only through the supporting affidavit of Geofirey Makana Asanyo and the respondent through the replying affidavit of Richard Wokabi Kariuki.
Paragraph numbering is irregular: the number 18 appears twice and the judgment ends at 19.
There is no appearance by the respondent at the hearing, and the record does not show the respondent's counsel being heard, though a replying affidavit was filed.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Milly Glass Works Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation & another[2025] KESC 72 (KLR)5 Dec 2025
- Frann Investments Limited v Kenya Anti Corruption Commission & 6 others (Civil Application E077 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1707 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1707 (KLR)24 Oct 2025
- Milly Glass Works Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Civil Application E131 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1136 (KLR)[2025] KECA 1136 (KLR)20 Jun 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kwanza Estates Ltd v Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology (Civil Application E053 of 2023) [2023] KECA 1516 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2023/1516/eng@2023-12-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.