Rift Valley Machinery Services Limited v Agro Complex (k) Limited & 8 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let this land dispute reach the Supreme Court, confirming that disagreeing with how judges viewed the facts is not enough to appeal further.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4) of the Constitution
It does not. The applicant was aggrieved by the factual appreciation by the learned Judges of the issues in the reference, not by any unsettled point of law; the principles governing extension of time are clear and uncontroversial, and no issue of general public importance was demonstrated.
The Court applied the Steyn v Gnecchi-Ruscone principles: the issue must transcend the particular case and bear significantly on the public interest. The dispute before the ELC was over a parcel of land; the certificate sought related only to the reference on extension of time. What the applicant perceived as a miscarriage of justice in the dismissal of its reference cannot satisfy the certification threshold. Factual determinations between private parties do not justify an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Whether the requirement to annex a draft memorandum of appeal and impugned judgment to an extension-of-time application, and the alleged inconsistency between single judges' arguability findings, raise questions of general public importance
No. These contentions, even taken at their highest, concern the exercise of discretion on the facts and settled procedural principles, not a substantial question of law warranting Supreme Court intervention.
The applicant argued that a single judge elsewhere had found the intended appeal arguable while the single judge here found it was not, undermining predictability, and that reliance on internal administrative measures offended access to justice. The Court found the applicant's grievance was with the factual appreciation of its candour regarding delay, which the reference court found unconvincing, and that this raises no substantial question of law for certification.
Legal principles established
#- Certification under Article 163(4)(b) requires a substantial point of law whose determination transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; a mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice or a factual dispute between parties does not qualify.
- Questions of law for which certification is sought must have arisen in the courts below and been the subject of judicial determination there.
- The settled principles governing extension of time applications are clear and not controversial and do not, without more, raise matters of general public importance for certification.
Court orders
#- 1.Declined to issue a certificate to the applicant to move to the Supreme Court on appeal
- 2.Dismissed the application with costs to the respondents
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya (full bench of M'Inoti, Tuiyott and Ngenye, JJ.A., on reference from single judge Murgor, JA.)
- Reference from ruling dated 7th May 2021 in the extension of time application arising from ELC claims over LR No. 22140 (K. Bor, J.)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4) of the Constitution (certification that a matter of general public importance is involved); sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rules 39, 40, 41, 42 and 43 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rift Valley Machinery Services Limited v Agro Complex (k) Limited & 8 others", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated 22nd December 2023 (Court of Appeal, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/974/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.