How Supreme Court handles urgent applications and why some cases move faster
Urgent applications typically succeed where delay would cause irreparable harm or destabilise public administration. Applicants must demonstrate exceptional circumstances and meet strict constitutional thresholds.
The Supreme Court’s handling of urgent applications has drawn renewed attention following its recent involvement in disputes touching on public institutions, labour relations and constitutional governance.
In Petition No. E030 of 2025, involving Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital and over 70 doctors, the apex court was asked to urgently intervene in a dispute with significant implications for public healthcare delivery.
More To Read
- Supreme Court dismisses bid to halt High Court state CEO recruitment case
- Explainer: How courts operate when the judiciary goes on recess
- Over half of circular economy workers lack protection, ILO report finds
- How circuit, mobile courts expanded justice to underserved communities - report
- Kenya’s economy can only absorb 250,000 graduates annually, Labour PS tells Senate
- CJ Koome affirms Judiciary’s commitment to transparency, says trust central to transformation
The matter was fast-tracked due to the potential impact on essential services and constitutional labour rights.
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution. It hears presidential election petitions, advisory opinions, and appeals involving constitutional interpretation or matters certified as being of general public importance. Urgency alone does not confer jurisdiction.
Urgent applications typically succeed where delay would cause irreparable harm or destabilise public administration. Applicants must demonstrate exceptional circumstances and meet strict constitutional thresholds.
In such cases, the court may issue interim orders to preserve the subject matter. These orders can suspend lower court proceedings or halt administrative action, but do not determine the merits of the dispute.
Certification plays a key role in speed. Appeals from the Court of Appeal must be certified as involving matters of general public importance. Without certification, the Supreme Court has no authority to hear the matter, regardless of urgency.
The court has repeatedly warned litigants against abusing urgency to leapfrog procedure. Judges have stressed that the Supreme Court is not a general court of appeal and must guard its docket carefully.
Recent rulings illustrate that cases move faster not because of the parties involved, but because of the constitutional weight and public impact of the issues raised. The court’s approach reflects a balance between efficiency and institutional restraint.
Top Stories Today
