Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited v Santowels Limited; Kenya Bankers Association (Intended Amicus Curiae)
The bottom line
#A party that sought to be an interested party cannot later claim neutrality as amicus curiae in the same case.
What this practically means
#The Supreme Court dismissed an application by the Kenya Bankers Association to join a case as a neutral friend of the court after judgment. The association had earlier tried to join as an interested party with a direct stake. The court said you cannot switch roles mid-case. It also ruled that allowing such intervention after a final decision would unfairly prejudice the other parties and undermine the principle that litigation must end.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant (Kenya Bankers Association) should be granted leave to be joined as amicus curiae in the review application post-judgment.
Key legal issues
#Whether an entity that previously sought joinder as an interested party can later be admitted as amicus curiae in the same proceedings.
No, because an interested party has a vested interest, while an amicus curiae must be neutral. The applicant cannot transmute from one role to the other.
The court noted that the applicant had initially sought to be joined as an interested party at an interlocutory stage, but the application was denied. An amicus curiae is primarily concerned with ensuring fidelity to the law, unlike an interested party with a direct stake. Therefore, the applicant cannot, within the same proceedings, transmute from asserting a vested interest to claiming neutrality as an amicus curiae.
Whether an application for joinder as amicus curiae can be made post-judgment.
No, because it would prejudice parties and violate the principle of finality of litigation, and the scope for amicus intervention post-judgment is limited.
The court found that the applicant's arguments on prospective overruling differed from the review sought by the appellant. Allowing such arguments at a late stage would prejudice the other parties and go against the principle of finality of litigation. Additionally, given the strictures for review of judgment under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and the principles in Outa v Okello, the scope for amicus intervention post-judgment is equally limited.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant who previously sought joinder as an interested party cannot later be admitted as amicus curiae in the same proceedings.
- Amicus curiae must be neutral, while an interested party has a vested interest in the outcome.
- Post-judgment amicus intervention is limited due to the principle of finality of litigation.
- Allowing amicus arguments after judgment would prejudice other parties.
- The strictures for review of judgment under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act also limit amicus intervention post-judgment.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated September 30, 2024 and filed on October 1, 2024 be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rules 3, 19 and 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020
Relief refused
#Leave to be joined as amicus curiae in the review application
The applicant had previously sought joinder as an interested party and was denied; it cannot transmute to amicus curiae. The arguments it seeks to advance differ from the review sought by the appellant. Allowing joinder post-judgment would prejudice parties and violate finality of litigation.
Deeming the amicus brief as duly filed and considered
The application for joinder was dismissed, so the brief cannot be considered.
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
Unlike an interested party with a direct stake in the case, an amicus curiae is primarily concerned with ensuring fidelity to the law. Consequently, the applicant cannot, within the same proceedings, transmute from asserting a vested interest to claiming neutrality as an amicus curiae.
To allow the applicant to make these arguments at this late stage would not only be prejudicial to the other parties but also go against the principle of finality of litigation.
In view of the strictures for the review of judgment under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act and the principles enunciated in Outa v Okello & 3 others [2017] KESC 25 (KLR), it follows that the scope for amicus intervention post-judgment would equally be limited.
Consequently, and for the reasons afore-stated we make the following orders: i. The notice of motion dated September 30, 2024 and filed on October 1, 2024 be and is hereby dismissed. ii. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Choose your role early
If your client has a direct interest, apply as an interested party, not amicus curiae. Once you seek interested party status, you cannot later claim neutrality. Also, do not wait until after judgment to seek amicus status; the court will reject it due to finality and prejudice to other parties.
Finality of litigation protects you
If you are a party to a case, this ruling reinforces that once a judgment is delivered, the court will not allow new neutral intervenors to reopen issues. This protects your certainty and prevents delays. Ensure you raise all arguments before judgment.
Know when to intervene
If you want to participate in a court case, decide early whether you have a direct stake (interested party) or just want to help the court (amicus curiae). You cannot switch roles later. Also, you cannot join after the case is decided.
Frequently asked questions
#Can an interested party become amicus curiae in Kenya?+
No. The Supreme Court held that a party who previously sought to join as an interested party cannot later claim neutrality as amicus curiae in the same proceedings. The two roles are incompatible.
Can amicus curiae be appointed after judgment in Kenya?+
Generally no. The court ruled that post-judgment amicus intervention is limited because it would prejudice other parties and violate the principle of finality of litigation. The strict rules for review of judgment also apply.
What is the difference between interested party and amicus curiae in Kenya?+
An interested party has a direct legal stake in the case outcome. An amicus curiae (friend of the court) is neutral and only helps the court with legal arguments. You cannot be both in the same case.
What is the principle of finality of litigation in Kenya?+
It means that once a court has delivered a final judgment, the matter should end. Allowing new parties or arguments after judgment undermines this principle and can prejudice the original parties. The Supreme Court applied this to reject a late amicus application.
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stanbic Bank Kenya Limited v Santowels Limited; Kenya Bankers Association (Intended Amicus Curiae)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (Application) E005 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2025/14/eng@2025-03-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.