Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCivil Application No. NAI. 63 of 1995· [2002] KECA 23 (KLR)

Raphael Kilonzo & 2 others v Johnstone Kilonzo Mutua & another [2002] KECA 23 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
18 September 2002
SBS.E.O. Bosire
143 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Court of Appeal gave the Kilonzo family more time to build their appeal case, but warned the application looked weak.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This document is not a reasoned appellate judgment but a brief in-chambers order made by a single Judge of Appeal, Bosire, JA, of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi on 18 September 2002 in Civil Application No. NAI. 63 of 1995. The applicants, Raphael Kilonzo, Benard Kilonzo and Boniface Kilonzo, sought extension of time to file an intended appeal against an order of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Torgbor, J) dated 5 August 1993 in H.C.C.C. No. 144 of 1989. The respondents to the application were Johnstone Kilonzo Mutua and Mbuli Mutua. The order does not determine the extension-of-time application. Although the Judge expressed reservations about its merits, he granted the adjournment prayed for and gave the applicant leave to file a further affidavit. The matter stood over to a fresh date to be refixed, and no order was made as to costs. No question of law was framed or decided, no authority or statutory provision was cited, and no binding proposition emerges from the order. The High Court decision of 5 August 1993 was neither affirmed, varied nor set aside; it remains undisturbed pending the refixed hearing of the extension application. The only operative effects are procedural: an adjournment, leave to file a further affidavit, and no order as to costs. Because the substantive application remains pending and undecided, the outcome is classified as 'other' rather than allowed or dismissed, and the fields for holdings, binding propositions, authorities and statutes are correctly empty.

Key legal issues

#

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Adjournment granted as prayed for.
    2. 2.Leave granted to the applicant to file a further affidavit.
    3. 3.Matter stood over to a fresh date to be refixed.
    4. 4.No order as to costs.
    On appeal from
    High Court of Kenya at Machakos
    H.C.C.C. No. 144 of 1989
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Not stated on the face of the document. It is an in-chambers application to a single Judge of Appeal for extension of time to file an intended appeal from the High Court; no constitutional or statutory provision is invoked or cited.

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Raphael Kilonzo & 2 others v Johnstone Kilonzo Mutua & another [2002] KECA 23 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Application No. NAI. 63 of 1995. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/23/eng@2002-09-18

    Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.