AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCivil Appeal No. 119 of 1999
Rosemary Mwinga v Godfrey Mahinda Mugure Mahinda [2001] KECA 59 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#The Court of Appeal did not decide this dispute — it simply postponed the appeal because the person appealing had not been properly served.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This document is not a reasoned appellate judgment but a short procedural order of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi in Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1999, an appeal by Rosemary Mwinga against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Rimita J) dated 22nd January 1996 in H.C.C No. 237 of 1994. The coram comprised Tunoi, Owuor and Ole Keiwua, JJ.A, sitting at Nakuru on 27th September 2001. The court recorded that the appellant had not been served and stood the appeal over generally. No issues were framed, no substantive holdings were made, no authorities were cited, and no costs order was issued. The decision below was neither affirmed, reversed nor varied; the appeal remains pending. Because the document contains no determination of any question of law, it establishes no binding precedent, and the substantive merits of the underlying dispute are not addressed anywhere in the text. The only quotable passage is the operative direction that the appeal be stood over generally for want of service on the appellant.
Key legal issues
#Legal principles established
#Court orders
#- 1.The appeal stood over generally owing to non-service on the appellant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nakuru
- H.C.C No. 237 of 1994
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The appellant has not been served. The appeal is stood over generally.
Issues in the judgment
#material
The document is a brief procedural order, not a reasoned judgment; no issues, holdings or costs order are determinable.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rosemary Mwinga v Godfrey Mahinda Mugure Mahinda [2001] KECA 59 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Appeal No. 119 of 1999. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/59/eng@2001-09-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.