Supreme Court → Court of Appeal
Read the hierarchy from the top down. Each chain shows how a matter travelled — what the High Court decided at first instance, what the Court of Appeal did with it, and whether the Supreme Court was ever engaged. Useful when you need to know what was actually argued below before you draft a ground of appeal.
Chains worth reading
One chain that began in the Small Claims Court, one from the ELRC, one that the Supreme Court disturbed in part, one that settled the rule on jurisdiction, and one that stopped at the Court of Appeal.
Akinyi v Ogwari & another
-
Akinyi v Ogwari & another Dismissed[2025] KEHC 11204 (KLR) · 4 July 2025 · Mwita, J
The appeal from the Small Claims Court was incompetent: section 38 gives a right of appeal to the High Court and no further, and the High Court's decision on that appeal is final.
-
Akinyi v Ogwari & another Refused[2025] KECA 2140 (KLR) · 3 October 2025 · Kiage, JA; M'Inoti, JA; Ochieng, JA
Certification to appeal to the Supreme Court refused. The intended ground was a complaint about the construction of a statute, not a point of law of general public importance.
-
Akinyi v Ogwari & another Dismissed[2026] KESC 9 (KLR) · 23 January 2026 · Koome, CJ & P; Mwilu, DCJ & V-P; Ibrahim, SCJ; Wanjala, SCJ; Njoki Ndungu, SCJ
Review dismissed. Article 163(3)(b)(ii) requires national legislation to prescribe the Court's appellate jurisdiction, and the Small Claims Court Act does not.
The matter began in the Small Claims Court at Milimani, where the first respondent's claim for Kshs. 640,000 succeeded; the High Court was therefore the first appellate court. Section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act makes the High Court's decision final, so the Court of Appeal's refusal of certification was the last step available to the applicants.
Kimweli & 46 others v National Social Security Fund
-
Kimweli & 46 others v National Social Security Fund Allowed in partCause 1043 of 2018 · 18 March 2021 · Mbaru, J
The restructuring of the members' contribution records was unlawful, but the claim for general damages was refused for want of proof of loss.
-
Kimweli & 46 others v National Social Security Fund Allowed in part[2024] KECA 512 (KLR) · 12 April 2024 · Nambuye, JA; Makhandia, JA; Omondi, JA
Appeal allowed in part: the declaratory orders stood, but the award of damages was set aside as unsupported by the evidence.
-
[2026] KESC 6 (KLR) · 23 January 2026 · Mwilu, DCJ & V-P; Ibrahim, SCJ; Wanjala, SCJ; Ouko, SCJ
Extension of time refused. The delay was unexplained and the prospects of success do not, without more, constitute exceptional circumstances.
Two courts below had already refused the indulgence sought. The Supreme Court treated the nine-month delay as fatal on its own, without reaching the merits.
Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services & 5 others
-
[2014] eKLR · 28 March 2014 · Mumbi Ngugi, J; Odunga, J; Korir, J
The digital migration deadline was upheld, but the Commission was directed to reconsider the licensing of the three signal distributors in accordance with the Constitution.
-
[2014] eKLR · 25 July 2014 · Ouko, JA; Musinga, JA; Kiage, JA
The appeals were dismissed and the orders of the High Court upheld, including the timetable for the migration of the broadcast signal.
-
[2014] eKLR · 29 September 2014 · Mutunga, CJ & P; Rawal, DCJ & V-P; Tunoi, SCJ; Maraga, SCJ; Ojwang, SCJ; Ndungu, SCJ; Wanjala, SCJ
The migration deadline stood, but the orders on licensing were set aside and the Commission was ordered to bear the costs of the litigation.
The only chain in this set in which the apex court disturbed the two decisions below — on costs and on the licensing process, not on the migration deadline itself.
Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others
-
[2010] eKLR · 22 October 2010 · Kimaru, J
The suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction: the dispute fell within the exclusive remit of the Industrial Court under the then section 14 of the Trade Disputes Act.
-
[2011] eKLR · 18 March 2011 · Nyamu, JA; Bosire, JA; Visram, JA
Appeal dismissed. A court cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself, and the High Court was right to decline to entertain a matter committed to another forum.
-
[2012] eKLR · 24 February 2012 · Mutunga, CJ & P; Wanjala, SCJ; Njoki Ndungu, SCJ; Tunoi, SCJ; Ojwang, SCJ
Leave to appeal refused. Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or from legislation and is never a matter of consent between the parties.
The chain that settled the modern rule on jurisdiction and is now cited in every second chain in the corpus.
Kenya Union of Commercial, Food & Allied Workers v Bideo Africa Ltd
-
Cause 88 of 2019 · 10 June 2021 · Nduma Nderi, J
The redundancy was procedurally unfair for want of consultation, but the claim for reinstatement was refused as the employer's business had closed.
-
[2024] KECA 288 (KLR) · 8 March 2024 · Omondi, JA; Murgor, JA; Mativo, JA
The award of compensation was set aside and substituted with three months' salary, the union having established the procedural breach but not the quantum claimed.
No petition for certification was filed, so the Court of Appeal's decision is final. Chains that stop below the apex court are shown here with the reason they stopped.
Outcomes at each level
A decision below survives more often than not: two-thirds of the appeals traced in the corpus were dismissed.
| Level | Decisions | Affirmed | Reversed or varied | Dismissed or struck out | Leave refused |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | 1,208 | 214 | 186 | 604 | 204 |
| Court of Appeal | 1,412 | 906 | 412 | 94 | — |
| High Court, ELRC and ELC | 2,904 | 1,712 | 1,018 | 174 | — |
| All levels | 5,524 | 2,832 | 1,616 | 872 | 204 |
“Dismissed or struck out” counts appeals and applications disposed of without any variation of the decision below. Leave refused is recorded only at the Supreme Court, certification being a matter for that Court alone.
Questions advocates ask about lineage
- What counts as one chain?
- One dispute, followed through every court that recorded a decision on it, linked by the parties, the subject matter and the citation of the decision below. A matter that was appealed twice is one chain with three steps.
- Why does the chain start with the High Court?
- Because that is where the record usually begins. Where the corpus holds the tribunal or Small Claims Court decision as well, the chain shows it as an earlier step.
- Can I cite a step without reading the whole chain?
- You can, but you should not. A ground of appeal that was not argued below is usually not open on appeal, and the chain tells you what was argued.
- How many steps does a chain have?
- Between two and five. Four is the most common: a tribunal or Small Claims Court, the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court.
- Does the corpus cover certification refusals?
- Yes. There are 204 in the traced chains. A refusal is a decision of the Supreme Court and is recorded as the last step of the chain, not as a gap in it.
- How current is the tracing?
- The corpus holds 99,603 judgments and is re-synced from Kenya Law daily. Chains are rebuilt whenever a new decision is added, so a step may appear a day or two after the judgment is published.