Tom Ochore Odiara & 1 other v Falcon Properties Limited & 1 other
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal refused to let this land dispute reach the Supreme Court, ruling that private title disagreements are not matters of general public importance.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the question whether a title acquired through a lawful vesting order can be nullified without first setting aside the underlying order constitutes a matter of general public importance
No - on the facts, the Court of Appeal had found the vesting orders nullities based on a recalled order; the applicants' complaint did not transcend the case.
The Court applied the Steyn criteria: a matter of general public importance must transcend the particular case and bear significantly on public interest. The gist of the applicants' complaint was whether a title founded on a lawful vesting order may be nullified without setting aside that order. The Court found that the Court below had considered all issues raised and found merit in the 1st respondent's case, and the applicants' disagreement with that evaluation was not a proper basis for certification. The proposed questions were held not to apply to the facts, which involved titles issued pursuant to an order recalled by Githua, J.
Whether apprehended injustice and effects on third parties and community institutions justify certification
No - apprehension of miscarriage of justice and impacts on a school, church and a third-party purchaser do not meet the certification threshold.
Relying on Steyn and Malcolm Bell v Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, the Court held that mere apprehension of injustice is not a proper basis for certification, and that a matter of general public importance must transcend the circumstances of the particular case. The applicants' reliance on the presence of Hope Academy, Hope Restoration Church and the interests of Lugman Petroleum Limited amounted to apprehended injustice in their own cause rather than a substantial point of law affecting the public interest.
Legal principles established
#- For certification under Article 163(4)(b), the intended appellant must show the issue transcends the particular case and bears significantly on public interest; the applicant must demonstrate a wrong principle of law, want of jurisdiction, or substantial constitutional issues.
- Mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice or disagreement with the lower court's evaluation of facts is not a basis for certification.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2025 is dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st respondent only
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land Court, Nairobi)
- Nairobi ELC Case No. 450 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya; Rules 32 and 33 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020; Sections 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act; Rule 43 of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2022
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tom Ochore Odiara & 1 other v Falcon Properties Limited & 1 other", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2025 (arising from Civil Appeal No. 356 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1303/eng@2026-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.