Odiara & another v Falcon Properties Ltd & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E018 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1303 (KLR)
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
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the intended appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment of 22nd August 2025 raises matters of general public importance warranting certification under Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution
- 2.Whether leave to appeal to the Supreme Court should be granted
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
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- 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
Relief refused
#Certification that the intended appeal raises matters of general public importance
The issues raised do not transcend the circumstances of the case nor bear significantly on public interest
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court
The application did not meet the criteria set in Hermanus Phillipus Steyn vs Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent only, since the 2nd respondent did not oppose the application
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.
Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 2nd December 2025 fails in its entirety and is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent only since the 2nd respondent did not oppose the application.
It is trite law that all litigation must sooner than later, come to an end and its conclusion must have a finality.
To qualify for certification, the appellant must demonstrate that the Court applied a wrong principle of law, acted without jurisdiction, or that the case raised substantial constitutional issues.
We are not persuaded that the issues raised by the applicants transcend the circumstances of this case, and have a significant bearing on public interest.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the hearing is recorded as 25th February 2025 and written submissions dated 25th February 2025 are described, yet the application is dated 2nd December 2025 and was necessitated by an extension-of-time ruling dated 28th November 2025 - the hearing dates precede the application date.
Judgment dated and delivered on 10th July 2026, but the text refers to an application dated 2nd December 2025 - internally consistent; however the extension-of-time ruling of 28th November 2025 preceding a 2nd December 2025 application is consistent, while the 25th February 2025 hearing date conflicts.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odiara & another v Falcon Properties Ltd & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E018 of 2025) [2026] KECA 1303 (KLR)", 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.