Joseph Rading Wasambo v Western Telecommunications Ltd [2001] KECA 196 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal allowed this appeal by agreement and sent the case back to the High Court for a completely fresh trial before a different judge.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.The judgment contains no framed issues for determination; the appeal was resolved by consent of the parties
Key legal issues
#Disposition of the appeal by consent
The parties consented to the appeal being allowed and the suit remitted for trial before another judge, with no order as to costs of the appeal.
The judgment records no reasoned adjudication. It is a consent disposition: the court allowed the appeal, remitted the case for trial before another judge, made no order as to costs of the appeal, and left the costs of the superior court and further hearing to the discretion of the trial judge.
Legal principles established
#- An appeal may be allowed by consent of the parties, with the matter remitted for trial de novo before another judge and costs left to the discretion of the trial judge.
Court orders
#- 1.By consent, the appeal is allowed
- 2.The case is remitted for trial to the superior court before another judge
- 3.No order as to costs of the appeal
- 4.The costs of the superior court and further hearing are in the discretion of the trial judge
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kisumu
- H.C.C.C. No. 307 of 1998
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over a decree of the High Court (the judgment text does not cite the specific constitutional or statutory provision)
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.
By consent, (i) the appeal is allowed (ii) the case is remitted for trial to the superior court before another judge.
(iii) the costs of the superior court and further hearing in the discretion of the trial judge.
is allowed with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment as reproduced contains no substantive reasoning; it consists only of the consent orders, so no issues, holdings or authorities can be extracted beyond the disposition.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Rading Wasambo v Western Telecommunications Ltd [2001] KECA 196 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2001). Civil Appeal No. 145 of 1999. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2001/196/eng@2001-03-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.