Ngao V Kitheka: Redefining the Boundaries of Constitutional Appeals in Kenya
Abstract
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ngao v Kitheka has sent ripples throughout Kenya’s judicial landscape. This ruling, dismissing an appeal premised on constitutional violations in a dispute primarily rooted in property and trust issues, underscores the Court’s strict interpretation of Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution. This article examines the case background, legal reasoning, and the broader repercussions and precedents the ruling establishes for Kenyan jurisprudence.
Introduction
In a landmark judgment delivered on January 31, 2025, the Supreme Court of Kenya in Ngao v Kitheka [2025] KESC 1 (KLR) has set a clear boundary regarding the scope of constitutional appeals. The decision, which dismissed the appellant’s petition on a preliminary objection of lack of jurisdiction, not only reinforces established principles on the interpretation and application of constitutional rights but also serves as a stern reminder that factual disputes cannot be retrofitted as constitutional controversies merely for the sake of escalation.
Background of the Case
The dispute centers on two parcels of land parcel 475 and parcel 476 over which the appellant, Ngulungu Kitheka Ngao, claims exclusive ownership, while the respondent, Alexander Matuvi Kitheka, argues that the properties were acquired jointly. The appellant’s primary grievance originated from the respondent’s alleged unlawful occupation and activities on the properties, leading to an initial suit at the Magistrate’s Court.
After the trial court ruled in favor of the respondent by establishing the existence of a constructive trust, both the Environment and Land Court (ELC) and the Court of Appeal affirmed this finding. Dissatisfied, the appellant escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, attempting to invoke constitutional violations (Articles 25(c), 40, and 50) to challenge the previous judgments. However, the Court observed that the entire factual matrix and decisions rendered at the lower levels were confined to evidentiary disputes rather than genuine constitutional interpretations.
Legal Analysis
1. Jurisdiction and the Preliminary Objection
At the outset, the respondent raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection questioning the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The Supreme Court reiterated that, under Article 163(4)(a) of the Constitution, only those appeals which involve questions of constitutional interpretation or matters of general public importance qualify for review. The Court noted:
- Inherent Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court holds inherent power to dismiss appeals that are purely factual or evidentiary in nature, a principle echoed in previous decisions such as Trattoria Limited vs. Maina and Megvel Cartons Limited vs. Diesel Care Limited.
- Limitation on Constitutional Arguments: The appellant’s attempt to reframe a dispute about property and constructive trust as one involving constitutional rights was deemed an improper extension of the issues presented at lower courts.
2. Factual Dispute Versus Constitutional Controversy
Throughout the litigation, the central dispute was whether the suit property, though registered solely in the appellant’s name, was held on trust for the respondent. The lower courts having analyzed evidence concerning joint payment, occupation, and common intention found no indication that the decisions were anchored in constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court’s analysis emphasized that:
- The factual findings on trust and ownership did not involve direct reference to constitutional provisions.
- The appellant’s subsequent invocation of constitutional rights represented a “mutation” of his original claim rather than a legitimate constitutional controversy.
3. Implications on the Scope of Supreme Court Appeals
By dismissing the appeal on the basis that it failed to meet the strict threshold required under Article 163(4)(a), the Supreme Court affirmed that:
- Appeals Must Originate from Constitutional Issues: Only cases in which the lower court’s decision is fundamentally tied to the interpretation or application of the Constitution are eligible for review at the highest level.
- Factual Disputes Are Not for the Supreme Court: The judgment reinforces that the role of the Supreme Court is not to re-adjudicate factual disputes or re-examine evidentiary determinations made by lower courts.
Repercussions and Precedents
1. Narrowing the Gateway for Constitutional Appeals
The ruling sets an important precedent by narrowing the criteria for what constitutes a permissible constitutional appeal. Future litigants will need to ensure that:
- Their appeals are clearly rooted in questions of constitutional interpretation.
- They provide compelling evidence that the lower court’s reasoning involved a misapplication of constitutional principles.
2. Guidance for Lower Courts and Litigants
The decision provides valuable guidance on framing issues at trial and appellate levels:
- For Litigants: It discourages the strategy of recharacterizing factual disputes as constitutional issues merely to access the Supreme Court’s review. This encourages a more disciplined approach to legal argumentation.
- For Lower Courts: The judgment reinforces the need for clarity in distinguishing between factual and constitutional matters, potentially influencing the structure of judgments in property and trust disputes.
3. Implications for Property and Trust Disputes
In disputes involving property ownership and constructive trusts, this ruling reaffirms that:
- Such disputes are primarily fact-driven.
- Constitutional rights, although paramount, must be expressly implicated in the decision making process at lower levels for an appeal to be escalated to the Supreme Court.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ngao v Kitheka is a watershed moment in Kenyan jurisprudence. By affirming the limits of its appellate jurisdiction, the Court has clarified that constitutional appeals are reserved for issues that genuinely involve the interpretation or application of the Constitution. This judgment not only curtails frivolous appeals that attempt to mask factual disputes as constitutional controversies but also sets a definitive precedent for future cases. As Kenya continues to evolve its legal landscape, the ruling stands as a reminder that the judiciary’s role is to ensure that constitutional principles are applied only where clearly warranted, thereby safeguarding judicial resources and maintaining the integrity of legal processes.
Article by; Churchill Mwamachi
For more insights pertaining to this matter, you can email us on info@mmsadvocates.co.ke. You can also find us at MMS Advocates, Lower Duplex Apartments, Lower Hill Road.