Githugu v Ngirigacha & another (Civil Application Sup E039 of 2024) [2025] KECA 141 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let a land dispute reach the Supreme Court, ruling that ordinary disagreements over fraud and land titles are not matters of national 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's proposed appeal to the Supreme Court raises matters of general public importance warranting certification under Article 163(4)(b)
- 2.Whether the issue whether a title acquired through alleged fraud by a prior owner, but held by an innocent purchaser, should be cancelled transcends the circumstances of this case
- 3.Whether a notice of appeal is a prerequisite to an application for certification as a matter of general public importance
Key legal issues
#Certification of general public importance for appeal to the Supreme Court
The application failed because the applicant raised no issue transcending the particular dispute; the fraud and purchaser-title questions had been fully determined in the courts below.
The Court applied the settled Steyn v Gnecchi-Ruscone principles and the Johnson Githaiga Njoroge formulation. Alleged fraud had been raised and determined in the subordinate court, the ELC and the Court of Appeal, as had the rights of an innocent purchaser. The applicant identified no new or novel issue, no contradictory precedents requiring resolution, and no substantial point of law bearing on the public interest. Fact-based contest outcomes cannot ground certification.
Legal principles established
#- For certification under Article 163(4)(b), the intending appellant must show an issue whose determination transcends the circumstances of the particular case and bears significantly on the public interest; determinations of fact between parties are not by themselves a basis for certification
- A matter of general public importance is one of law or fact whose impact and consequences are substantial, broad-based, transcend the parties' litigation interest and bear on the public interest; the burden lies on the intending appellant
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's motion for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and for certification of matters of general public importance is dismissed
- 2.No order on costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (own judgment sought to be appealed to Supreme Court; underlying trial in Kerugoya CMCC Nos. 403 and 379 of 2010 and Kerugoya ELC Appeal No. 43 of 2004)
- Civil Appeal No. 162 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and sections 15 and 23 of the Supreme Court Act (application for certification of matters of general public importance)
Relief refused
#Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and certification that the issues are of general public importance
The alleged fraud and purchaser-title issues were already sufficiently determined by the courts below; no new or novel issue transcending the case was raised
Costs
No order on costs, the respondents having failed to attend the hearing despite service
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.
There are no issues that transcend the circumstances of the case; there are no issues of general public importance at all. The motion fails and is dismissed with no order on costs, the respondents having failed to attend the hearing despite being served with a hearing notice.
determinations of fact in contests between parties are not, by themselves, a basis for granting certification for an appeal before the Supreme Court.
its impact and consequences are substantial, broad-based, transcending the litigation interest of the parties, and bearing upon the public interest.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the application as brought under Article 163(4)(B), which in fact governs appeals as of right in presidential election petitions, whereas the motion is for certification of matters of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b); the reference appears to be a typographical slip for 163(4)(b).
The judgment states Kerugoya ELC Appeal No. 43 of 2004 was filed by the 2nd respondent, but the year 2004 predates the 2012 judgment in the consolidated suits it purports to appeal from, suggesting a typographical error in the appeal number or year.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Githugu v Ngirigacha & another (Civil Application Sup E039 of 2024) [2025] KECA 141 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal No. 162 of 2012 (application for leave and certification). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/141/eng@2025-01-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.