Geothermal Development Co. Ltd v Lantech (Africa) Ltd (Civil Application E021 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1216 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal ruled that Kenya's Supreme Court cannot hear arbitration appeals like this one, ending Geothermal's bid and confirming arbitration disputes end at the Court of 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 Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(b) to entertain a further appeal from a Court of Appeal judgment in an arbitration matter arising from a section 35 Arbitration Act judgment of the High Court
- 2.If jurisdiction exists, whether the proposed questions meet the threshold of matters of general public importance
Key legal issues
#Supreme Court jurisdiction over intended appeals from Court of Appeal judgments in section 35 Arbitration Act matters
The application for certification fails at the threshold: the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the intended appeal from the Court of Appeal's judgment in an arbitration dispute emanating from a section 35 Arbitration Act judgment of the High Court.
The Court of Appeal applied the Supreme Court's ruling in Cape Holdings v Synergy Industrial Credit, which reiterated the Geochem Middle East declaration that expedition in arbitration matters forecloses further appeals to the Supreme Court where the Court of Appeal has properly assumed jurisdiction under Nyutu and Synergy and delivered a consequential judgment. That decision binds this Court, and the present application is indistinguishable from it. Having reached that conclusion, the Court found it superfluous to consider the proposed questions of general public importance.
Consideration of the proposed questions of general public importance
Because jurisdiction fails, the Court declined to consider whether the three proposed questions raised matters of general public importance, expressing only that they would have merited settlement by the Supreme Court if jurisdiction existed.
The Court held that once the jurisdictional bar was established on binding Supreme Court authority, the remaining questions - the meaning of 'received' in section 35(3), the effect of a section 34 correction on the limitation period, and the interplay of sections 36 and 37 - were moot in this application and need not be addressed.
Legal principles established
#- Where the Court of Appeal has assumed jurisdiction over an arbitration appeal in conformity with Nyutu and Synergy and delivered a consequential judgment, no further appeal ordinarily lies to the Supreme Court, which lacks jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal
- The Court of Appeal is bound by a Supreme Court declaration on jurisdiction and cannot hold otherwise on the certification of such appeals
Court orders
#- 1.Application for certification dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal (prior bench: W. Karanja, M'Inoti & Achode, JJ.A.)
- Civil Appeal No. E637 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution - certification of an intended appeal to the Supreme Court as one raising matters of general public importance
Relief refused
#Certification of the intended appeal to the Supreme Court as raising matters of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
The Supreme Court has declared that no further appeal ordinarily lies to it from a Court of Appeal judgment in an arbitration matter where the Court of Appeal assumed jurisdiction under Nyutu and Synergy and delivered a consequential judgment; the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent ("we hereby dismiss this application 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.
For the reason aforesaid, we hereby dismiss this application with costs to the respondent.
The application before us in all fours with the above cited decision, which is binding upon this Court.
Having arrived at that conclusion, it would be superfiuous for us to consider the other issues raised by the applicant, save to say that if the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the intended appeal, it would have settled the law regarding the three questions framed by the applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#The applicant's own citation of High Court decisions (University of Nairobi, Dinesh Construction, Wil Developers) describes them as appeals 'before this Court' although the citations are High Court (KEHC) decisions - an apparent internal inconsistency in the judgment's recital of counsel's submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Geothermal Development Co. Ltd v Lantech (Africa) Ltd (Civil Application E021 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1216 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Application (certification) arising from Civil Appeal No. E637 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1216/eng@2026-06-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.