iv. a question relating to conflict of laws under Article 191. 141. Although the Constitution uses the phrase ‘substantial question of law’ as the test for guiding the Court in determining the nature of cases that should be recommended for empanelment of a bench to hear and determine, it does not proceed to ascribe meaning to the phrase. 142. Nonetheless, I do not think the phrase ‘substantial question of law’ should present any difficulty in discerning the meaning as it has received judicial consideration in various authorities. 143. In the celebrated Indian Supreme court Case of Sir Chunilal Mehta and Sons, Ltd vs The Century Spinning and Manufacturing (1962) SC 1314 stated: “A substantial question of law is one which is of general public importance or which directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and which has not been finally settled by the Supreme Court, the Privy Council or the Federal Court or which is not free from difficulty or which calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or general principles to be applied in determining the questions are well settled and that there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is probably absurd, the question would not be substantial….” 144. In the case of Philomena Mbete Mwilu (Supra) the court observed as follows: “24. ……a question of law would be a substantial question of law if it directly or indirectly affects the rights of parties; there is some doubt or difference of opinion on the issues raised and that the issue is capable of generating different interpretations. If however the question has been well settled by the highest court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question before court have been well-settled, the mere application of those principles to a new set of facts presented in a case before the court would not on their own constitute a substantial question of law. There must be the possibility of the matter attracting different interpretations or opinion in its interpretation or application of the principles espoused in the matter to make it a substantial question of law. All this notwithstanding, it is up to the individual judge to decide whether the matter raises a substantial question of law for purposes of reference.” 145. The Court of Appeal in Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & Another (supra) set out the principles to be applied when considering such an application. The held thus: “42. There are, in our view, parallels to be drawn between certification for purposes Article 163(4)(b) of the Constitution and certification for purposes of Article 165(4) notwithstanding that the drafters of the Constitution, in providing for certification of matters for purposes of appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 163(4)(b) stipulated that a matter should be of “general public importance”, The word, “substantial” in its ordinary meaning, means “of considerable importance”. There is therefore wisdom to be gained from the pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Kenya respecting interpretation of Article 163(4)(b). In Hermanus Phillipus Steyn v Giovanni GnechiRuscone [2013] eKLR the Supreme Court of Kenya pronounced governing principles for purposes of certification under Article 163(4)(b) some of which are relevant in the context of certification under Article 165(4). Drawing therefrom, we adopt, with modification, the following principles: “(i) For a case to be certified as one involving a substantial point of law, the intending applicant must satisfy the Court that the issue to be canvassed is one the determination of which affects the parties and transcends the circumstances of the particular case and has a significant bearing on the public interest; (ii) The applicant must show that there is a state of uncertainty in the law; The Judiciary of Kenya Doc IDENTITY: 2256051208128601561718914604 Tracking Number:OOEX9A2025 21/23