Kiptalam v County Government of Kwale (Civil Appeal (Application) E118 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1286 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to let a dismissed employment dispute reach the Supreme Court, ruling it raised no matter of general 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 application meets the threshold for certification to appeal to the Supreme Court pursuant to Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant's intended appeal on county government disciplinary mechanisms over nationally-engaged civil servants raises a matter of general public importance under Article 163(4)(b)
It does not; the dispute was an ordinary employer-employee contract matter whose disciplinary aspects are routine in the public sector and do not transcend the parties.
The court held that what was litigated in the ELRC and on appeal arose from an employer-employee relationship founded on a contract of employment. Breach of the Human Resource Manual by an Anaesthetist and consequent disciplinary action are ordinary causes of action. Nothing novel in the disciplinary mechanism was shown, and mere grievance with factual findings does not warrant certification. Citing Steyn v Ruscone and Memphis Limited, the court reiterated that certification requires issues transcending the litigation interests of the parties and bearing on the public interest, and that fact-based contests are not a basis for certification.
Whether the unsigned and uncommissioned supporting affidavit vitiates the application
The court declined to consider the affidavit for want of a jurat, a mandatory requirement under Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act.
The respondent objected that the supporting affidavits were neither signed nor commissioned, and that separate jurats filed later could not cure the defect. The court, while determining the matter on the submissions, expressly stated it was unable to consider the affidavit in support of the application because a jurat is a mandatory requirement under Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act.
Legal principles established
#- For certification under Article 163(4)(b), the intending appellant must show that the issue transcends the circumstances of the particular case and bears significantly on the public interest; determinations of fact and ordinary employment disputes do not qualify.
- The certification requirement is a genuine filtering process ensuring only appeals with elements of general public importance reach the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court cannot be a forum for correcting errors in the application of settled law.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 30th July 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal of Kenya (Mombasa)
- Mombasa Civil Appeal No. E118 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution - certification that an appeal involves a matter of general public importance; application brought under Rules 41, 44, 45 and 5(2)(b) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Relief refused
#Certification of the intended appeal to the Supreme Court as viable and grant of unconditional leave to lodge the appeal
The intended appeal does not raise a matter of general public importance; it arises from an ordinary employer-employee contractual dispute
Stay of execution or further proceedings in Mombasa Civil Appeal No. E118 of 2022
Abandoned by the applicant at the hearing
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.
In the result, we find that the Notice of Motion dated 30th July 2025 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent.
There is nothing to suggest that disciplinary issues in the context of employment transcend the parties involved, so as to qualify them to be matters of general public importance.
the requirement for certification under Article 163 (4)(b) is a genuine filtering process to ensure that only appeals with elements of general public importance reach the Supreme Court
We add that we are unable to consider the afidavit in support of the application for want of a jurat, which is a mandatory requirement under Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment appears to conflate two citations for the Mokare case, printing two KECA citations in sequence for one authority.
The judgment text alternates between spelling 'afidavit' and 'affidavit' and renders the applicant's case number inconsistently as 'ELRC Cause No. 95 of 2021' in the narrative while the consolidated suit heading reads 'ELRCC No. 95 of 2019'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kiptalam v County Government of Kwale (Civil Appeal (Application) E118 of 2021) [2026] KECA 1286 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1286/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.