Boit & another v Kibias (Civil Application E017 of 2023) [2024] KECA 63 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to send this land dispute to the Supreme Court, ruling that private disagreements don't qualify as 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 applicants' intended appeal raises a matter or matters of general public importance warranting certification for appeal to the Supreme Court
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance warranting certification under Article 163(4)(b)
It does not; the issues raised do not disclose substantial and broad-based consequences transcending the litigation interests of the parties, and the applicants failed to show any uncertainty in the law occasioned by the decisions below.
Applying the Steyn threshold, the Court found the applicants' grievances - residual jurisdiction, the parol evidence rule, land control board consent and privity of contract - did not transcend the particular dispute. The applicants sought to further their dissatisfaction with the Court's judgment and ruling; the intended litigation does not enter the public sphere. A mere belief that injustice was occasioned is not the purpose for which the Supreme Court was created.
Legal principles established
#- The onus of establishing that a matter meets the threshold for certification to the Supreme Court reposes with the intended appellant, who must identify and formulate the matter of public importance relied upon
- Mere dissatisfaction with a judgment or apprehension of miscarriage of justice does not transcend the parties' dispute and is not a basis for certification under Article 163(4)(b)
- Each ruling or judgment is ordinarily appealed against individually; consolidation of appeals or leave applications is a matter for the Court appealed to, not for a party through a single convoluted application
Court orders
#- 1.The Court declines to certify the intended appeal as befitting a hearing by the Supreme Court
- 2.The notice of motion dated 14th April 2023 is dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret (Appeal No. 8 of 2014), with prior dismissal by this Court in Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2018 and Civil Application No. E108 of 2021
- Eldoret Civil Application No. E108 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4) of the Constitution; section 19 of the Supreme Court Act; rules 24 and 26 of the Supreme Court Rules; rules 5(2) and 40 of the Court of Appeal Rules (application for certification of an intended appeal as raising a matter of general public importance and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court)
Relief refused
#Certification of the intended appeal as raising a matter of general public importance and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
The applicants failed to establish any issue of general public importance; the intended appeal does not transcend the parties' dispute and is a mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice
Costs
The notice of motion is dismissed in its entirety 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.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the notice of motion dated 14th April 2023 has no merit. We decline to certify the intended appeal as befitting a hearing by the Supreme Court. The notice of motion is hereby dismissed in its entirety with costs to the respondent.
These issues do not disclose substantial and broad-based consequences transcending the litigation interests of the parties, and bearing upon the public interest.
All that we see in this application are parties who seek to further their dissatisfaction with the judgment and ruling of the Court and nothing of general public interest at all.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling sought to be appealed was delivered by Sichale, Ochieng & Achode, JJA, yet two of those judges (Sichale and Achode) sat on this certification application, with no mention of their prior involvement.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Boit & another v Kibias (Civil Application E017 of 2023) [2024] KECA 63 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Application No. E108 of 2021 (as arising from Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 112 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2024/63/eng@2024-02-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.