Milly Glass Works Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Civil Application E131 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1136 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let Milly Glass Works take its lease dispute with Kenya Railways to the Supreme Court because it raises no issue of 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 intended appeal raises a point or points of law
- 2.Whether the points of law in issue are of general public importance
- 3.Whether the application for certification was made within the prescribed time
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended appeal involves matters of general public importance warranting certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
The intended appeal, though raising points of law, does not involve matters of general public importance because the issues concern purely private claims under a lease agreement in which the public has no stake.
Applying the Steyn principles, the court held that matters suitable for certification must have substantial, broad-based impacts transcending the litigation interests of the parties and bearing on the public interest. The proposed questions on premature rent review clauses and recovery of unpleaded refunds relate to private contractual disputes and raise no substantial and novel points of law of general public importance, notwithstanding the applicant's contention of widespread effect on lessors and lessees.
Compliance with the time requirement for a certification application
The application, filed within the period prescribed, was in good time; the third requirement was satisfied but did not save the motion.
The court noted that the judgment subject to the intended appeal was delivered on 25th October 2024 and the Motion dated 22nd and filed 23rd November 2024 was filed within time. This satisfied the third requirement for certification, but because the first two requirements (point of law of general public importance) failed, the application was nonetheless dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- For certification under Article 163(4)(b), the intending appellant must demonstrate that the point of law is substantial, transcends the circumstances of the particular case and bears significantly on the public interest; purely private contractual claims do not qualify.
- Determination of factual contests between parties is not, by itself, a basis for granting certification for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2024 seeking certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Mombasa ELC No. 135 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution and rule 40 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022 (certification and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court)
- Consolidated with
- Civil Appeal No. E083 of 2022, Civil Appeal No. E035 of 2023
Relief refused
#Certification that the intended appeal involves matters of general public importance and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
The intended appeal raises points of law but they are not of general public importance, concerning purely private claims under a lease agreement
Costs
the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2024 fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents
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 find that the applicant's intended appeal raises no points of law of general public importance.
While the intended appeal may be said to raise points of law, those points are, in our considered view, of no general public importance.
we find that the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2024 fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents. Orders accordingly.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment records the applications as brought under rules 41(2) and 44 but later states that rule 41(2) requires such an application within 30 days, while rule 40 as reproduced requires an application within fourteen days of the decision; the two provisions are not reconciled.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Milly Glass Works Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation & another (Civil Application E131 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1136 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application No. E035 of 2024 (intended appeal from Malindi Civil Appeal No. E083 of 2022 and E035 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1136/eng@2025-06-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.