africa.lawBeta
SearchAsk AICollectionsJudgesCompareMemo
africa.law

Free access to African legal information. Legislation, case law, and regulatory documents from across the continent.

Resources

  • Legislation
  • Gazettes
  • Jurisdictions

Developers

  • API Documentation
  • Bulk Downloads
  • Data Sources
  • GitHub

Company

  • About
  • Contact
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Policy

Jurisdictions

  • Ghana
  • Kenya
  • Nigeria
  • South Africa
  • Tanzania
  • Uganda

© 2026 africa.law by Bhala. Open legal information for Africa.

Aggregating legal information from official government publications and public legal databases across the continent.

Back to search
Case Law[2022] KESC 11Kenya

Kanjama v Attorney General & 82 others (Petition E017 of 2021) [2022] KESC 11 (KLR) (19 May 2022) (Ruling)

Supreme Court of Kenya

Judgment

Kanjama v Attorney General & 82 others (Petition E017 of 2021) [2022] KESC 11 (KLR) (19 May 2022) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2022] KESC 11 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Supreme Court of Kenya Petition E017 of 2021 I Lenaola, SCJ May 19, 2022 Between Charles Kanjama Applicant and Attorney General & 82 others Respondent (Being an application to a Single Judge of the Supreme Court of Kenya for review of the decision of Hon. Ole Keiwua, Deputy Registrar dated 13th January, 2022 declining to admit the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal dated 29th September, 2021 filed against the decision of the Court of Appeal (Musinga (P), Nambuye, Okwengu, Kiage, Kairu, Sichale & Tuiyott JJ. A) in Civil Appeals No. E291, E292, E293 and E294 of 2021 delivered on 20th August, 2021) Ruling [1]UPON perusing the Notice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2022 brought under Articles 3(1), 22, 159(2), 163, 258(2) & 260 of [the Constitution](/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution), Section 3 (e) and 11 of the [Supreme Court Act](/akn/ke/act/2011/7) and Rule 3(2), 6(2), 32, 40(3) & 55 of the Supreme Court Rules seeking an order of review and setting aside the decision of the Deputy Registrar in his letter dated 13th January, 2021 declining to accept the Applicant’s notice of appeal against the Judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeals No. E291, E292, E293 and E294 of 2021; a determination of substantial issues of law and procedure on admission of parties to an appeal and that this application be heard prior to the determination of Petitions No. 11, 12 and 13 of 2021 in the Hon. Attorney General v David Ndii & others; and [2]UPON reading the applicant’s grounds in support of his application, his supporting affidavit sworn on 2nd February, 2022 and the applicant’s written submissions dated 10th February, 2022 where he contends that Rule 6(1) of the Supreme Court Rules allows a party aggrieved by the decision of the Deputy Registrar to seek a review of the decision; that his application raises fundamental issues for consideration by this Court on the scope of locus standi for litigants to lodge causes on constitutional matters and address the question of who can appeal to the Supreme Court; a determination of the question on the effective date of filing an appeal on the e-filing platform and physical filing of the appeal and; on when the Deputy Registrar of the Court communicates the reasons and decisions for rejecting an appeal to a party; [3]AND having considered the application, I FIND as follows:a.The notice of appeal upon which the applicant seeks to have filed challenges the Judgment and Orders of the Court of Appeal delivered on 20th August, 2021. Three appeals challenging this Judgment were filed before this Court being The Hon. Attorney General v. David Ndii & Others, Petitions No. 11, 12 and 13 of 2021 which were heard and Judgment delivered on 31st March, 2022. There is therefore no proper notice of appeal that can be filed challenging the consolidated appeal after delivery of judgment in the petition. The application has therefore been overtaken by events.b.The applicant is also seeking a determination of issues regarding who may file an appeal to this Court generally and the issue of whether the Deputy Registrar should always communicate reasons for rejecting an appeal and how that communication should be made. It is my finding that such matters relate to substantive issues which cannot be decided in an otherwise straight forward interlocutory application seeking an order of review.c.The upshot of my finding is that the application before me has no merit on substance and in any event, has been overtaken by events. [4]I therefore make the following Orders:i.The Notice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2022 is hereby dismissed.ii.Each party shall bear their own costs. [5]It is so ordered. **DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 19TH DAY OF MAY, 2022.****I. LENAOLA****.....................................................................****JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT** _I certify that this is a true copy of the original_**REGISTRAR** _**SUPREME COURT OF KENYA**_

Similar Cases

Katiba Institute v Attorney General & 9 others (Petition 17 (E017) of 2020) [2021] KESC 25 (KLR) (3 December 2021) (Ruling)
[2021] KESC 25Supreme Court of Kenya85% similar
Wafula v Director of Public Prosecution & 149 others (Criminal Petition E032 of 2022) [2023] KESC 16 (KLR) (Crim) (17 February 2023) (Ruling)
[2023] KESC 16Supreme Court of Kenya83% similar
Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 others v Okoiti & 3 others (Petition (Application) 13 (E019) of 2020 & Petition 18 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2022] KESC 68 (KLR) (4 November 2022) (Ruling)
[2022] KESC 68Supreme Court of Kenya82% similar
Kenya Railways Corporation & 2 others v Okoiti & 3 others (Petition 13 & 18 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2022] KESC 2 (KLR) (10 February 2022) (Ruling)
[2022] KESC 2Supreme Court of Kenya82% similar
Kimani & 2 others v Attorney General (Petition 34 of 2019) [2022] KESC 12 (KLR) (19 May 2022) (Ruling)
[2022] KESC 12Supreme Court of Kenya81% similar

Discussion