Advocate Cecil Miller led arguments before the Court of Appeal seeking to halt proceedings in a long-running commercial dispute as parties await determination of an application for certification to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appearing before Justice Christine Atieno Ogweno, Cecil Miller, alongside Dudley Ochiel and Peter Wena, represented Nyanja Holdings Limited and other respondents in the matter, while Ms Sheila Ndiho appeared for the fourth respondent, Red Mars Holding Limited and Ms Kabura (holding brief for Mr Kadima) appeared for the appellants.

The case arises from an earlier High Court decision that nullified a private treaty sale of charged property and made findings of fraud – issues now under challenge in the Court of Appeal.

At the core of the day’s proceedings was an application by Cecil Miller seeking adjournment of the settlement of terms pending hearing of a certification application scheduled for April 21, 2026, before a three-judge bench.

Miller told the court that proceeding with settlement at this stage would undermine the pending application.

“Proceeding with settlement of terms now would render the certification application nugatory,” he argued, adding that the hearing was only days away and that a short adjournment was both reasonable and necessary.

He further submitted that there was no risk to the property in dispute and no prejudice to the appellants.

“Any prejudice can be compensated by costs if certification fails,” Miller stated, urging the court to defer settlement proceedings until the full bench determines the certification issue.

The application relates to whether the matter meets the threshold for escalation to the Supreme Court, a step that could significantly alter the trajectory of the case.

In a separate but related issue, Dudley Ochiel raised concerns over representation, pointing to continued service of documents on former advocates. He argued that the confusion creates uncertainty on who is properly on record and urged the court to clarify representation before further steps are taken.

The court, however, referenced an affidavit of service dated April 1, 2026, noting that emails used for service had previously been acknowledged.

Responding, Ms Sheila Ndiho for the fourth respondent opposed the adjournment, maintaining that service had been properly effected using the same communication channels. She argued that the objection raised by the respondents was a delay tactic.

“The appellants did not seek stay of execution. Settlement of terms is independent of the certification application,” she submitted, urging the court to allow the process to proceed.

Ms Kabura, appearing for the appellants, confirmed that they had been served with the draft order on February 5, 2026 and had accepted its terms without amendment. In reply, Cecil Miller maintained that proper service had not been effected, stating that the email cited had not been received.

“The email cited for service was never received, including in spam folders,” he told the court.

The appeal itself challenges the high court’s findings, including conclusions on fraud, the handling of evidence, and the interpretation of contractual obligations, with the appellant arguing that key issues were not pleaded and that the burden of proof was improperly applied.

The matter, which revolves around financial arrangements, securities and the exercise of statutory power of sale, continues to raise significant questions on procedural fairness and commercial law.

The court is expected to give direction on the application as the case proceeds, with the outcome of the certification hearing likely to determine whether the dispute advances to the Supreme Court.

• A Tell Media report / Elizabeth Were