Advocate Cecil Miller asked the Court of Appeal to halt proceedings in a commercial dispute.
He urged the court to wait for the outcome of an application seeking certification to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Cecil Miller Supreme Court appeal could determine whether the case proceeds to Kenya’s highest court.
Miller seeks court adjournment
Cecil Miller appeared before Justice Christine Atieno Ogweno.
He represented Nyanja Holdings Limited alongside Dudley Ochiel and Peter Wena.
Ms. Sheila Ndiho represented Red Mars Holding Limited.
Ms. Kabura held brief for Mr. Kadima and appeared for the appellants.
Miller asked the court to postpone the settlement of terms.
He said the court should first hear the certification application on April 21, 2026.
Lawyer warns against proceeding
Miller argued that continuing with the settlement would undermine the certification application.
“Proceeding with settlement of terms now would render the certification application nugatory,” he told the court.
He said the hearing would take place within days.
He also argued that a short adjournment would not prejudice the appellants.
“Any prejudice can be compensated by costs if certification fails,” he added.
Miller said the disputed property faced no immediate risk.
Representation dispute emerges
Dudley Ochiel raised concerns about legal representation.
He said parties continued serving documents on former advocates.
Ochiel argued that this practice created uncertainty.
He urged the court to determine who was properly on record before taking further steps.
The court referred to an affidavit of service dated April 1, 2026.
The judge noted that parties had previously acknowledged the email addresses used for service.
Respondents oppose the application
Ms. Sheila Ndiho opposed the adjournment request.
She argued that all parties had properly exchanged documents.
She described the application as an attempt to delay the proceedings.
“The appellants did not seek stay of execution. Settlement of terms is independent of the certification application,” she submitted.
Ms. Kabura confirmed that the appellants received the draft order on February 5, 2026.
She said they accepted the draft without proposing any amendments.
Miller challenges service
Miller disputed the claim that parties had properly served him.
He said he never received the email mentioned during the hearing.
“The email cited for service was never received, including in spam folders,” he told the court.
Appeal challenges high court findings
The appeal challenges the High Court’s findings on fraud.
It also questions the court’s handling of evidence and contractual obligations.
The appellants argue that the High Court relied on issues they never pleaded.
They also claim the court incorrectly applied the burden of proof.
The dispute involves financial arrangements, securities, and the exercise of statutory power of sale.
The appeal raises broader questions about commercial law and procedural fairness.
Court awaits next direction
The Court of Appeal will issue directions after considering the application.
The certification hearing will determine whether the dispute advances to the Supreme Court.
