Lucy Wamaitha Chege v Rose Wakanyi Karanja & 3 others
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let Lucy Chege take her long-running land dispute to the Supreme Court, finding no public importance and no power to grant a stay.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Timeliness and competence of the certification application
The application was filed on 29th September 2016, well outside the fourteen days prescribed by rule 40, and no extension of time was sought; however, the Court chose to consider the substantive certification question in the interest of justice and finality.
Rule 40 requires certification applications to be made informally at delivery of the decision or formally within fourteen days. The application here was filed two months late and no application under rule 4 for enlargement of time accompanied it, rendering it incompetent per Njowamu Construction. The Court nonetheless declined to dispose of the matter solely on this procedural slip, preferring to address the substantive threshold for certification given the age of the litigation and the desire for finality.
Whether the intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
It does not. The judgment appealed from turned on settled principles under section 46 of the Advocates Act, the doctrine of lis pendens, and the Land Control Act applied to the particular facts; no novel, unsettled or jurisprudentially significant issue was demonstrated.
Applying Hermanus Phillipus Steyn, Malcolm Bell and Town Council of Awendo, the applicant had to identify a precise issue of general public importance transcending the parties. The appeal below was decided on established principles applied to the specific transaction; the spouse's proprietary rights question was addressed within the factual matrix; no conflicting authorities, uncertainty or lacuna was shown; and the champerty doctrine was not central to the decision below. The Everton Coal Enterprises certification refusal by the Supreme Court on the same dispute lent further credence.
Whether a stay pending the intended appeal could be granted
No. The Court of Appeal became functus officio upon delivery of its final judgment in Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2010 and lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court.
Relying on Dickson Muricho Muriuki v Timothy Kagondu Muriuki, the Court affirmed that once it has rendered its final judgment it has no jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court. The prayer for stay therefore had to fail independently of the certification question.
Legal principles established
#- Certification of a matter of general public importance requires that the issue transcend the circumstances of the particular case, bear significantly on the public interest, and raise a substantial point of law with consequences beyond the parties; mere dissatisfaction with the outcome does not suffice.
- Certification is not a vehicle for litigants to relitigate factual and legal conclusions already reached by the Court of Appeal; there must be shown a genuine uncertainty or lacuna in the law.
- After delivering final judgment, the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to grant a stay of execution pending an intended appeal to the Supreme Court (functus officio).
- An application for certification made outside the time prescribed by rule 40 of the Court of Appeal Rules, without a concurrent application for enlargement of time under rule 4, is incompetent.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2016 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution; section 15 of the Supreme Court Act, 2011; sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; rules 5(2)(b) and 42 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lucy Wamaitha Chege v Rose Wakanyi Karanja & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2016 in Civil Appeal No. 172 of 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1100/eng@2026-06-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.