Johmat Distributors Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya (Civil Appeal (Application) E263 of 2021) [2025] KECA 2129 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused Johmat Distributors permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, confirming that only issues affecting the wider public—not just one party—qualify.
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 application for certification was filed out of time
- 2.Whether the intended appeal to the Supreme Court raises a matter of general public importance warranting certification under article 163(4) of the Constitution
- 3.Whether the court has jurisdiction to stay execution of its own judgment pending the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Time limit for certification applications
The application was filed within time because rule 41(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules allows 30 days, not the 14 days contended by the respondent under rule 42(b) of the Supreme Court Rules
The respondent argued the application was out of time under rule 42(b) of the Supreme Court Rules prescribing 14 days. The court held that the operative provision is rule 41(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules, which allows 30 days after delivery of the decision. Judgment was delivered on 20th September 2024 and the application filed on 8th October 2024, within the 30 days.
Certification for appeal to the Supreme Court - matter of general public importance
The applicant's issues (interest on frozen funds, costs, enforcement of an undertaking) were peculiar to the specific suit and did not transcend the litigation interests of the parties
Applying the criteria in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone, the court held that a matter of general public importance must transcend the particular case, raise a substantial point of law with significant bearing on the public interest, and must have arisen and been determined in the courts below. The applicant's complaint concerned interest on money frozen for 14 years and an undertaking in a specific suit; apprehension of injustice alone does not qualify.
Jurisdiction to stay execution of the court's own judgment
The Court of Appeal has no jurisdiction under rule 5(2)(b) to stay execution of its own judgment; that rule applies only to applications pending the hearing of a main appeal
Relying on Dickson Muricho Muriuki v Timothy Kagondu Muruiki & 6 others, the court agreed that rule 5(2)(b) empowers the court to hear interlocutory applications pending the hearing and determination of a main appeal before it, but does not confer power to entertain any application on the merits of a suit after judgment. The stay prayer therefore failed for want of jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- Rule 41(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules prescribes a 30-day period for filing an application for certification that a matter of general public importance is involved
- Rule 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules does not confer jurisdiction on the Court of Appeal to stay execution of its own judgment after delivery; it applies only to interlocutory applications pending a main appeal
- Mere apprehension of injustice or miscarriage of justice is not a basis for certification of an appeal to the Supreme Court as a matter of general public importance
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's notice of motion application dated 8th October 2024 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Certification to appeal to the Supreme Court is refused
- 3.Costs of the application are awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court
- HCCA No. 204 of 2004
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution (application for certification of a matter of general public importance under rule 41(2) of the Court of Appeal Rules)
Relief refused
#Certification that the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance under article 163(4)(b)
The issues raised (interest, costs, undertaking) were peculiar to the specific suit and did not transcend the parties' circumstances
Stay of execution of the Court of Appeal judgment pending the intended appeal
Rule 5(2)(b) confers no power to entertain applications on the merits of a suit after judgment
Costs
The applicant's notice of motion application of 8th October 2024 fails in its entirety and is 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.
The applicant's notice of motion application of 8th October 2024 fails in its entirety and is dismissed with costs to the respondent. It is so ordered.
Mere apprehension of injustice, or miscarriage of justice, is not a basis for certification as a matter of general public importance.
A matter of general public importance must transcend the circumstances of the particular case. It is not enough that a party fears injustice in his or her cause.
rule 5(2)(b) confers power to this court to hear interlocutory applications pending the hearing and determination of the main appeal before it, and does not confer power to this court to entertain any application on the merits or otherwise of a suit after judgment
Issues in the judgment
#The plaint is described as 'dated 17th April 2004 and further amended on 27th February 2004', which is internally contradictory as the amendment date precedes the filing date
The ruling refers to the prior Court of Appeal panel as 'S Gatembu Kairu, F Tuiyott, & GWN Macharia JJA' while the panel delivering this certification ruling comprises different judges; the ruling also inconsistently cites both article 163(4)(b) in the application premises and article 163(4)(a) and (b) in the respondent's submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Johmat Distributors Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya (Civil Appeal (Application) E263 of 2021) [2025] KECA 2129 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Application E263 of 2021 (Arising from Civil Appeal E263 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/2129/eng@2025-12-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.