Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Civil Application 16 of 2016 |
---|---|
Parties: | Glencore Energy (UK) Ltd v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd |
Date Delivered: | 18 Jul 2018 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | Supreme Court of Kenya |
Case Action: | Ruling |
Judge(s): | David Kenani Maraga, Isaac Lenaola, Philomena Mbete Mwilu, Smokin Charles Wanjala, Njoki Susanna Ndungu |
Citation: | Glencore Energy (UK) Ltd v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd [2018] eKLR |
Case History: | Being an application for review of the decision of the Court of Appeal (Githinji, Azangalala & Mohamed, JJA) given at Nairobi on 17th June, 2016 dismissing the applicant’s application for certification that the matter herein is one of general public importance warranting a further appeal to the Supreme Court |
Court Division: | Civil |
County: | Nairobi |
History Judges: | Erastus Mwaniki Githinji, Festus Azangalala, Mohammed Abdullahi Warsame |
Case Summary: | Requirements to be fulfilled before a matter could be certified as a matter of public interest
Glencore Energy (UK) Ltd v Kenya Pipeline Company Ltd [2018] eKLR Civil Application No. 16 of 2016 Supreme Court of Kenya D K Maraga, CJ; P M Mwilu, DCJ; S C Wanjala, N S Ndung’u & I Lenaola, SCJJ July 18, 2018 Reported by Kakai Toili
Appeals – appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court – certification of appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court – certification of appeals - criteria to certify appeals – public interest - what were the requirements to be fulfilled before a matter could be certified as a matter of public interest Brief Facts: The Court of Appeal declined to grant the Applicant certification to appeal to the Court against its decision. Aggrieved by the Court of Appeal decision the Applicant filed the instant Application seeking a review of the said decision on the grounds that the Court of Appeal failed to appreciate that the matters in respect of which the Applicant sought a decision of the Court were substantial points of law which were of general public importance and transcended the circumstances of the instant case. Issue:
Held:
Application dismissed, costs to the Respondent. East Africa Cases 1. Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone Appl No 4 of 2012- (Followed) 2. Kaparo & 5 others v Ngoge [2012] 2 KLR 419- (Followed) East Africa Statutes 1. Constitution of Kenya, 2010 article 163(4) (b) (5) – (Interpreted) 2. Supreme Court Rules, 2012 (Act No 7 of 2011 Sub Leg) rule 31 – (Interpreted) Advocates None Mentioned |
Extract: | East Africa Cases 1. Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone Appl No 4 of 2012- (Followed) 2. Kaparo & 5 others v Ngoge [2012] 2 KLR 419- (Followed) East Africa Statutes 1. Constitution of Kenya, 2010 article 163(4) (b) (5) – (Interpreted) 2. Supreme Court Rules, 2012 (Act No 7 of 2011) rule 31 – (Interpreted) Advocates None Mentioned <body id="cke_pastebin" absolute; top: 12px; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow: hidden; left: -1000px;"> East Africa Cases 1. Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone Appl No 4 of 2012- (Followed) 2. Kaparo & 5 others v Ngoge [2012] 2 KLR 419- (Followed) East Africa Statutes 1. Constitution of Kenya, 2010 article 163(4) (b) (5) – (Interpreted) 2. Supreme Court Rules, 2012 (Act No 7 of 2011 Sub Leg) rule 31 – (Interpreted) Advocates None Mentioned </body> |
Case Outcome: | Application dismissed |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
(Coram: Maraga, CJ & President; Mwilu,DCJ &
VP; Wanjala; Njoki; & Lenaola, SCJJ)
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16 OF 2016
GLENCORE ENERGY (UK) LTD........................APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA PIPELINE COMPANY LTD...............RESPONDENT
(Being an application for review of the decision of the Court of Appeal (Githinji, Azangalala &
Mohamed, JJA) given at Nairobi on 17th June, 2016 dismissing the applicant’s
application for certification that the matter herein is one of general
public importance warranting a further appeal to
the Supreme Court).
R U L I N G
[1] In its ruling delivered at Nyeri on 17th June 2016, the Court of Appeal (Githinji, Azangalala & Mohamed, JJA) declined to grant the applicant certification to appeal to this Court against its decision delivered on 17th June 2016. On 1st July 2016, the applicant filed this application under Article 163(4)(b) and (5) of the Constitution and Rule 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2012 seeking a review of the Appellate Court’s said decision declining to grant certification.
[2] The application is premised on the grounds that the Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the matters in respect of which the applicant seeks a decision of this Court are substantial points of law which are of general public importance and transcend the circumstances of this particular case.
[3]As this Court stated in the case of Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni Gnecchi-Ruscone, Sup. Ct. Appl. No. 4 of 2012 [2013] eKLR, a decision it had also made in Peter Oduor Ngoge v. Hon. Francis Ole Kaparo & 5 Others [2012] eKLR (Supreme Court Petition No. 2 of 2012) and reiterated in many other subsequent decisions, an applicant seeking certification “must satisfy the Court that the issue to be canvassed on appeal is one the determination of which transcends the circumstances of the particular case….” If the applicant’s appeal is based on a point of law, he “must demonstrate that such point is a substantial one, the determination of which will have a significant bearing on the public interest.”
[5] Upon consideration of the facts in this matter alongside the said principles governing the grant of certification to appeal to this Court, we agree with the written submissions by counsel for the respondent and find that the decisions of the two courts below were based on each of those court’s interpretation of the provisions of the private Transportation and Storage Agreement between Triton Petroleum Company Limited (Triton) and the Respondent and the Collateral Financing Agreement between Triton and the applicant. These are not issues of general public importance which transcends the circumstances of this particular case. They do not therefore meet the criteria set out in the above cases.
[5] The determinations by the two courts below of the legal issues of whether there was bailment by attornment; whether incorporation by reference is part of the law of Kenya; and the alleged unconstitutional deprivation of property as framed by the applicant were based upon the peculiar facts of the case and each of the two courts’ said interpretation of the two private agreements. They are therefore not substantial points of law the determination of which will have a bearing on public interest. In the circumstances, we find no merit in this application and we accordingly dismiss it with costs to the respondent.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 18th day of July, 2018
........................... ......................
D.K. MARAGA P.M. MWILU
CHIEF JUSTICE & PRESIDENT DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE & VICE
OF THE SUPREME COURT PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT
............................ ............................
S. C. WANJALA N.S. NDUNG’U
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
.......................
I. LENAOLA
JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
I certify that this is a true copy of the original
REGISTRAR
SUPREME COURT OF KENYA