Karanja v Mugi (Civil Application E009 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1792 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to let a private land dispute reach the Supreme Court, ruling that public interest alone does not justify such an appeal.
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 intended appeal to the Supreme Court raises a matter of general public importance warranting certification under Article 163(4) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Whether a private land dispute, characterised by the applicant as involving 'great public interest' and the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2), qualifies as a matter of general public importance for certification
It does not. The applicant failed to identify a precise, substantial point of law that arose and was determined in the courts below; the dispute was a two-party land dispute with no public-interest dimension.
The court applied the seven Steyn parameters. The only arguable point of law - ELC jurisdiction under Article 162(2) - was not raised before the trial court or the Court of Appeal, so it failed the requirement that the question have arisen below and been the subject of judicial determination. The framing as 'great public interest' was conceptually wrong, and the remaining complaints were factual, which cannot ground certification. The court saw the application as an attempt at a third bite at the cherry.
Legal principles established
#- Great public interest is not a ground for certification; an applicant must prove that the case involves a matter of general public importance as defined in Article 163(4) and the Steyn parameters.
- A question of law cannot be raised for the first time in a certification application; it must have arisen and been judicially determined in the courts below.
- Determinations of fact in contests between private parties do not, by themselves, justify certification of an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court orders
#- 1.The certification application dated 20th December 2023 was dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
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 (Nakuru)
- Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4) of the Constitution - certification that a matter of general public importance is involved, as a precondition to an appeal to the Supreme Court
Relief refused
#Certification of the matter as one of great public interest / general public importance for appeal to the Supreme Court
The dispute was a purely private land dispute; the alleged jurisdictional issue was not raised or determined in the courts below; the remaining issues were factual
Leave to file the Notice of Appeal out of time
It fell with the certification application, which was dismissed for lack of merit
Costs
The application was dismissed 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.
Great public interest is not one of the grounds for certification of a matter and grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. What an applicant is required to prove is that the case involves a matter of general public importance.
A perusal of the judgement of the trial court, the grounds of appeal to this Court and the judgement of the Court does not reveal that jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court was in issue right through.
The public has no interest in that determination. In our view, what the applicant is trying to do is to have a third bite at the cherry by making a worthless journey to the doors of the Supreme Court which we reject.
In the premises, we find no merit in this application which we hereby dismiss with costs to the respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently refers to the applicant using both singular and plural pronouns, describing the applicant as 'it' and 'it was averred' despite the applicant being a natural person, and 'the appellant' and 'the applicant' interchangeably for the same party.
The quoted excerpt from Mwambeja Ranching contains an internal numbering anomaly ('71.') and cites 'Article 164 (4)' of the Constitution, which does not exist; the certification jurisdiction is under Article 163(4).
The delivery line is garbled: 'THIS 31ST DAY OCTOBER, OF 2025'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karanja v Mugi (Civil Application E009 of 2024) [2025] KECA 1792 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Certification Application dated 20th December 2023 arising from Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 200 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/1792/eng@2025-10-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.