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 387 of 2001 (205/01UR)

Joackim Mwandale Okessa v Judith Guserwa [2002] KECA 230 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
14 February 2002
JGJ. E. GicheruROR. S. C. OmoloALA. A. Lakha
118 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

#

Okessa withdrew his bid to enforce a High Court ruling pending an appeal, and the Court of Appeal made him pay the other side's costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This document is a brief order of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi dated 14th February 2002, delivered by the coram of Gicheru, Omolo and Lakha, JJ.A. It disposes of Civil Application No. Nai 387 of 2001 (205/01UR), an application by Joackim Mwandale Okessa for an execution order pending appeal, arising from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Rawal J) dated 12th July 2001 in H.C.C.S. No. 5 of 2001. The court made no determination on the merits and expressed no reasoning; it simply recorded that the application was withdrawn, with the costs of the application awarded to the respondent, Judith Guserwa. Because the application was withdrawn rather than heard and determined, the judgment contains no framed issues, no holdings, no binding propositions for lower courts, and no treatment of the decision below. The only operative content is the withdrawal and the costs order. The document is certified as a true copy of the original by the Deputy Registrar. For briefs and citation purposes, this order has value only as a record of the withdrawal and the costs consequence; it should not be cited for any proposition of law.

Key legal issues

#

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The application is withdrawn with costs thereof to the respondent.

    The bench

    #

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

    JG
    majority
    RO
    majority
    AL
    majority
    On appeal from
    High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
    H.C.C.S. No. 5 of 2001
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Not stated in the judgment; the document records only that the application was one for an execution order pending appeal from the ruling of the High Court.

    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.

    This application is withdrawn with costs thereof to the respondent.
    p. 2Final order - withdrawal of application with costs

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    material

    The document is a bare one-line order of the court recording withdrawal of the application; it contains no reasoning, no framed issues, and no holdings, so no binding propositions or key legal issues can be extracted from it.

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Later judgments citing this (1)

    #

    Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Joackim Mwandale Okessa v Judith Guserwa [2002] KECA 230 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Application No. Nai 387 of 2001 (205/01UR). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/230/eng@2002-02-14

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