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 AppealOtherCriminal Appeal No. 78 of 2002

Peter Manson Ouko v Republic [2002] KECA 209 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
18 September 2002
JGJ.E. GicheruASA.B. ShahMKM. Ole Keiwua
157 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 postponed Peter Manson Ouko's criminal appeal because both sides agreed the hearing needed two full days; no decision was made.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This document is a short procedural order of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi, dated 18 September 2002, in Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2002, in which Peter Manson Ouko appeals against a conviction and sentence imposed by the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr. Justice Etyang) on 24 May 2001 in H.C.CR.C. No. 54 of 1999. The full bench comprised Gicheru, Shah and Ole Keiwua JJ.A. The order records that counsel for both parties - Mr. Wagara for the appellant and Mr. Okumu for the Republic - were agreed that the hearing of the appeal would require at least two days. On that basis, and by consent of the parties as to the time estimate, the court removed the appeal from that day's hearing list and directed that it be set down for hearing for two clear days, with the setting down to be done at the Registry by the parties themselves. The order is signed and delivered by all three Judges of Appeal. It is not a substantive judgment: no grounds of appeal are considered, no issue is determined, no authority is cited, and the decision of the High Court is neither affirmed nor disturbed. No costs order was made. The document therefore has no binding ratio and serves only as a case-management direction pending the full hearing of the appeal.

Key legal issues

#

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The appeal was taken out of the day's hearing list
    2. 2.The appeal to be set down for hearing for two clear days at the Registry by the parties

    The bench

    #

    One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

    JG
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    AS
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    MK
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    On appeal from
    High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
    H.C.CR.C. No. 54 of 1999
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over a conviction and sentence of the High Court (Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2002); no specific constitutional or statutory provision is cited in the document.

    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.

    Accordingly the appeal is taken out of today's hearing list for it to be set down for hearing for two clear days at the Registry by the parties.
    p. 2Direction on listing of the appeal

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    material

    The document is a procedural direction/order of the court, not a substantive judgment; it determines no issue, makes no findings, and contains no holdings, so most fields cannot be populated from the text.

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Peter Manson Ouko v Republic [2002] KECA 209 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 2002. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/209/eng@2002-09-18

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