Wakilii

Pontrilas Investments Limited v Central Bank of Kenya and Another (Appeal No.2 of 2023)

East African Court of Justice · [2025] EACJ 9 · 2025 Appeal Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Interlocutory appeal from the Ruling of the First Instance Division regarding bifurcation of proceedings and discharge of the 1st Respondent
Decision
Matter remitted to First Instance Division for fresh hearing on all issues including jurisdiction

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The Appellate Division held that the First Instance Division committed a procedural irregularity by bifurcating proceedings to determine jurisdiction separately, contrary to its earlier ruling that the jurisdictional issue raised mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence. The Court found that the Trial Court's decision to hear the bifurcation application, after repeatedly indicating it would proceed with the full reference, denied the appellant a fair hearing. The determination that the Central Bank of Kenya was not an institution of the Community without conducting the contemplated evidentiary hearing was also a procedural irregularity. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for hearing in accordance with the original directions.

Outcome

Matter remitted to First Instance Division for fresh hearing on all issues including jurisdiction

Facts

Pontrilas Investments Limited filed Reference No. 8 of 2017 against the Central Bank of Kenya and the Attorney General of Kenya, alleging breaches relating to the management of Imperial Bank Ltd. The 1st Respondent raised a preliminary objection on jurisdiction, arguing it was not an institution of the East African Community. The Trial Court ruled in July 2019 that the jurisdictional issue raised mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division in November 2021. Both courts directed that the issue be determined after taking evidence during the full hearing. Despite these rulings and the Trial Court's repeated indications that it would proceed with the full reference, on 16-17 November 2022 the Trial Court heard and granted the 1st Respondent's application for bifurcation, determined the jurisdictional issue separately without the contemplated evidentiary hearing, and discharged the 1st Respondent from the proceedings. The Appellant appealed, arguing procedural irregularity and denial of fair hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether the First Instance Division erred in law and committed a procedural irregularity by bifurcating and hearing separately the issue of jurisdiction.
  2. Whether the First Instance Division erred in law and committed a procedural irregularity by holding before taking all the evidence that the Central Bank of Kenya is not an institution of the East African Community.
  3. What remedies should the Court grant?

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Ruling of the First Instance Division dated 17th November 2022 set aside.
  • Reference No. 8 of 2017 remitted to the First Instance Division for hearing and determination in terms of its Ruling dated 4th July 2019, the Judgment of the Appellate Division dated 18th November 2021, and the Directions of 28th March 2022.
  • Costs of the appeal to abide the outcome of the Reference.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Bifurcation of Proceedings — Exercise of Discretion — Consistency with Prior Rulings
Where a court has ruled that a jurisdictional issue raises mixed questions of law and fact requiring evidence and that ruling has been affirmed on appeal, the court commits a procedural irregularity by subsequently bifurcating proceedings to determine that issue separately without conducting the contemplated evidentiary hearing, particularly where the court had repeatedly indicated it would proceed with the full hearing.
Civil Procedure — Fair Hearing — Right to Present Evidence — Procedural Fairness
The rule of law as a fundamental principle requires fairness in judicial proceedings, including equality of arms, adequate opportunity to prepare a case, and the right to present arguments and evidence. A court denies a party a fair hearing when it proceeds to determine an issue in a manner contrary to its prior indications and without affording the party sufficient opportunity to identify and present its evidence.
Administrative Law — Rule of Law — Fair Trial — Elements of Fairness
The rule of law encompasses fairness in the application of the law and procedural transparency. A fair trial includes equality of all persons before the judicial body, equality of arms between parties, and adequate opportunity to prepare a case, present arguments and evidence, and challenge or respond to opposing arguments or evidence.
Civil Procedure — Interlocutory Appeals — Procedural Irregularity — Appellate Intervention
An appellate court will intervene where a trial court's exercise of discretion in managing proceedings results in a procedural irregularity that deprives a party of a fair hearing, particularly where the trial court acts inconsistently with its own prior rulings that have been affirmed on appeal.

Legislation cited (11)

  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 1
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 6(d)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 9(1)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 9(2)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 9(3)
  • Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community Article 30
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 rule 4
  • East African Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, 2019 rule 127
  • Constitution of Kenya Article 231
  • Central Bank of Kenya Act Cap 491
  • Companies Act No. 17 of 2015

Cases cited (9)

  • Baranzira Raphael and another v Attorney General of the Republic of Burundi (Reference No. 15 of 2014)
  • Martha Wangari Karua v Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya (Reference No. 20 of 2019)
  • Central Bank of Kenya v Pontrilas Investments Ltd and Another (Appeal No. 3 of 2020)
  • Ashmore v Corp of Lloyds [1992] 2 All ER 486
  • Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain [1994] ICJ Rep 112
  • United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran [1980] ICJ Rep 3
  • Aegean Sea Continental Shelf [1978] ICJ Rep 3
  • Zahira Habibullah Shaikh and Another v State of Gujarat and Others (Criminal Appeal Nos. 441-449 of 2009)
  • Mrs Kalyani Baskar v Mrs M S Sampoornam (Criminal Appeal No. 1293 of 2006)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Pontrilas Investments Limited v Central Bank of Kenya and Another (Appeal No.2 of 2023) [2025] EACJ 9 (4 March 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.