Kungu v Dyer & Blair Investiment Bank Ltd & another
The bottom line
#Supreme Court dismisses review filed 2 years late, affirming strict 14-day deadline.
What this practically means
#Peter Mwangi tried to challenge a Supreme Court ruling from October 2023, but he filed his application in February 2026—over two years late. The Court said no. Under Kenyan law, review applications must be filed within 14 days of the ruling. Missing that deadline without permission is fatal. The Court also found that Mwangi was simply unhappy with the outcome, not that the ruling was obtained by fraud or was a nullity. Dissatisfaction alone is not enough for a review.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has laid a sufficient basis to warrant a review of this Court’s Ruling delivered on 6th October 2023, pursuant to Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the application for review was filed within the statutory time limit under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act
The application was filed two years and four months after the ruling, manifestly outside the 14-day period, and without leave of the court, rendering it unmeritorious.
The Court noted that Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act prescribes a 14-day timeline for filing a review application. The ruling sought to be reviewed was delivered on 6th October 2023, but the present application was filed on 17th February 2026. The applicant did not seek leave to file out of time. The Court held that this alone was sufficient to dismiss the application, as the statutory timeline is mandatory and the applicant failed to comply with it.
Whether the applicant demonstrated exceptional circumstances to warrant review under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act
The applicant failed to demonstrate any of the limited grounds for review: fraud, nullity, mistaken consent, or reliance on a repealed law. His claims amounted to mere dissatisfaction with the merits.
The Court applied the test from Fred Otieno Outa v Jared Odoyo Okello, which limits review to four exceptional circumstances. The applicant argued the ruling was a nullity because the Court allegedly failed to properly review the Court of Appeal's certification decision and did not apply the full Hermanus/Malcolm Bell principles. The Court found these arguments unsubstantiated: the Court of Appeal had already found the issues did not transcend personal grievances, and this Court upheld that finding. The applicant did not identify any principle from those authorities that the Court disregarded, nor did he show how the Court reframed his grievance. The Court concluded that the applicant was merely dissatisfied with the outcome, which does not meet the threshold for nullity or exceptional circumstances.
Whether the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court were required to apply the full Hermanus/Malcolm Bell principles to the applicant's seven questions
Once the Court found that the issues did not transcend the personal dispute between the parties, it was under no obligation to consider the other principles outlined in Hermanus and Malcolm Bell.
The Court explained that Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution confers jurisdiction to hear matters certified as of general public importance. In Hermanus Phillipus v Giovanni Gnecchi-Roscone, the Court defined a matter of general public importance as one that transcends the circumstances of the particular case. The Court of Appeal found the applicant's issues did not transcend his personal grievances, and this Court upheld that finding. Since the threshold of 'transcending personal interests' was not met, the Court was not required to proceed to consider the other principles from Hermanus and Malcolm Bell. The applicant failed to identify any specific principle from those authorities that the Court disregarded.
Legal principles established
#- Review applications under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act must be filed within 14 days of the judgment or ruling.
- Filing outside the 14-day period without leave of court automatically makes the application unmeritorious.
- Supreme Court review is limited to four grounds: fraud, nullity, mistaken consent, or reliance on a repealed law.
- Mere dissatisfaction with a court's decision does not qualify as a ground for review.
- A review is not a chance to re-litigate a case just because a party lost.
- If a case does not raise issues of general public importance, courts need not apply the full Hermanus/Malcolm Bell principles.
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 10th February, 2026 and filed on 11th February, 2026 is hereby dismissed with costs to respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Supreme Court of Kenya
- Supreme Court Application No. E023 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act, read with Rule 28(5) of the Supreme Court Rules
Relief refused
#Review, vary, vacate and/or set aside the ruling of 6th October 2023
Application filed outside the 14-day statutory period under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act without leave; no exceptional circumstances demonstrated; grounds amount to mere dissatisfaction with merits.
Review of the Court of Appeal ruling on certification
The Court found no basis to set aside its own ruling, and therefore the ancillary orders sought could not be granted.
Issuance of a reasoned certification under Article 163(5)
The Court upheld the Court of Appeal's finding that the issues did not transcend personal grievances; no obligation to apply full Hermanus/Malcolm Bell principles once that threshold was not met.
Leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment
The application for review was dismissed, so no further orders could issue.
Costs
The applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 10th February, 2026 and filed on 11th February, 2026 is hereby dismissed with costs to respondents.
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.
The ruling sought to be reviewed was delivered on 6th October 2023, while the present application was filed on 17th February 2026, two years and four months later. It is therefore manifestly outside the fourteen-days timeline prescribed under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act.
As submitted by the 2nd respondent, and which we agree with, the applicant’s claims amount merely to dissatisfaction with the merits of the decision of this Court. Such dissatisfaction does not meet the threshold for nullity and, by extension, cannot sustain a review under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act.
Having established that the issues raised in the intended appeal did not transcend the personal dispute between the parties, this Court was under no obligation to consider whether the other principles outlined in Hermanus and Malcolm Bell cases had been satisfied.
The applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 10th February, 2026 and filed on 11th February, 2026 is hereby dismissed with costs to respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Strict 14-day deadline for Supreme Court review
When advising clients on Supreme Court review under Section 21(4), note the 14-day window is mandatory. Filing even one day late without prior leave is fatal. Also, review grounds are limited to fraud, nullity, mistaken consent, or repealed law. Do not file a review based solely on client dissatisfaction with the merits—it will be dismissed with costs.
Finality of Supreme Court decisions
If your business loses at the Supreme Court, you have only 14 days to seek a review—and only on very narrow grounds like fraud or nullity. This case confirms that the Court will not reopen a matter just because you disagree with the outcome. Plan your litigation strategy accordingly: once the Supreme Court rules, the case is almost certainly over.
Don't delay if you want a review
If you lose a case at the Supreme Court and believe there was fraud or a serious legal error, you must act fast. You have just 14 days from the ruling to file a review application. Missing that deadline means your application will be thrown out, no matter how strong your arguments are. Also, being unhappy with the result is not a valid reason for review.
Frequently asked questions
#What is the deadline to file a review application in the Supreme Court of Kenya?+
Under Section 21(4) of the Supreme Court Act, you must file a review application within 14 days of the judgment, ruling, or order you want reviewed. If you miss this deadline, you need the Court's permission to file late. In this case, the applicant filed two years late without permission, so the application was dismissed.
Can I ask the Supreme Court to review a decision just because I disagree with it?+
No. The Supreme Court only reviews its decisions in exceptional circumstances: if the judgment was obtained by fraud, is a nullity, was given under a mistaken belief of consent, or was based on a repealed law. Mere dissatisfaction with the outcome is not enough. This case confirms that principle.
What happens if I file a Supreme Court review application late in Kenya?+
If you file a review application after the 14-day deadline without first getting the Court's permission, the application will be dismissed as unmeritorious. The Court will not consider the merits of your case. In Peter Mwangi v Jimnah Mwangi Mbaru, the application was filed over two years late and was thrown out on that basis alone.
What does 'matter of general public importance' mean for Supreme Court appeals in Kenya?+
For the Supreme Court to hear an appeal, the case must raise an issue that transcends the personal dispute between the parties and affects the public at large. If the Court of Appeal finds the issues are only personal grievances, the Supreme Court will not consider other factors. This case upheld that approach.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kungu v Dyer & Blair Investiment Bank Ltd & another", Case Analysis (2026). Application E007 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/42/eng@2026-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.