A court can refuse permission for a further appeal without making a fresh decision about who owns a property. That distinction matters to anyone assessing a hotel acquisition or property-backed investment. In Accredo AG & 3 others v Steffano Uccelli & another, the Court of Appeal refused certification for a Supreme Court appeal. Its ruling of 24 April 2020 was not a new title determination. (Ruling, printed pages 1 and 10–11.)
How the hotel entered the dispute
The ruling's background describes an attempt to enforce a Milan judgment in Kenya against Salama Beach Hotel Limited. It identifies that company as the registered proprietor of Plot No. 9890 Watamu, Grant No. 11576, and owner of the hotel erected there. This is a historical description in the ruling, not a current registry confirmation. The property's Watamu location supports the Kilifi county tag; neither the Malindi court heading nor delivery at Nairobi establishes property geography. (Printed pages 1–3 and 11.)
In HCCC No. 118 of 2009, Accredo sought enforcement and injunction orders restraining disposal of the hotel, together with an order allowing a management takeover. A December 2009 consent subsequently enabled a change of control. The first respondent later challenged that consent, disputing its foundation and his authority to enter it. These were contested matters, not facts established simply because a party alleged them. (Printed pages 3–4.)
Earlier orders were not the certification decision
As the ruling recounts, Chitembwe J. set aside the consent after making findings concerning how it had been obtained, and issued company-control and handover orders. An appeal upheld that decision. A further application then sought an interim injunction against those orders. This procedural sequence matters: an interim request is not the same thing as relief granted. (Printed pages 4–5.)
On 20 March 2018, W. Korir J. treated that further application as res judicata and outside his jurisdiction: deciding it would effectively review or sit on appeal over another judge's decision. The Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. The certification request concerned its judgment of 21 August 2019 in Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2018. (Printed pages 1 and 5.)
What the applicants sought, and what was refused
In Civil Appeal (Application) No. SUP. 43 of 2018, the applicants argued that final orders had been made without a merits hearing and that their fair-hearing rights were offended. The respondents opposed certification, arguing that the dispute did not transcend its particular facts. Neither submission should be reported as the court's conclusion. (Printed pages 5–6 and 8–9.)
The court applied the general-public-importance test under Article 163(4)(b). It found nothing novel or exceptional in its earlier decision on res judicata and jurisdiction. It also explained that complaints about setting aside the consent belonged to the earlier appeal arising from Chitembwe J.'s ruling, not the judgment now targeted. The motion was dismissed with costs to the respondents. Certification was refused, not granted. (Printed pages 7–11.)
The source contains inconsistent motion dates and earlier-judgment year references. This account does not resolve them by assumption. The dated closing clearly supplies 24 April 2020 and the dismissal order. (Printed pages 1, 6 and 10–11.)
What a prospective buyer should check
The practical lesson is to separate the property record, company authority and each court order. Ask your advocate which decision concerned consent or control, which addressed an interim application, and which merely refused certification. Request current official land and company records and establish whether later orders affect the proposed transaction.
This account does not establish present ownership, possession, shareholding or authority to sell. Later appeals, stays and implementation have not been researched. A procedural refusal is not a clearance certificate.
ArdhiScore can support professional due diligence through available parcel-linked court, gazette and field intelligence, alongside monitoring within disclosed coverage. That is not complete coverage, access to private banking records, a title guarantee or prevention of disputes. Official checks and legal advice remain necessary. See how ArdhiScore works.