AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCivil Appeal 50 of 1997
ERASTUS CHEGE MAINA v KAMAU KOMU [1998] KECA 39 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#This Court of Appeal record is only an adjournment order — no decision was made on the appeal or the underlying High Court judgment.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This document is not a substantive appellate judgment but a brief procedural order of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru dated 22 September 1998 in Civil Appeal 50 of 1997, Erastus Chege Maina v Kamau Komu. The appeal, which lies from a High Court judgment of Lady Justice Ondeyo dated 17 November 1994 in H.C.C.C. No. 497 of 1990, came up for hearing before a bench of three Judges of Appeal: R.O. Kwach, G.S. Pall and E. Owuor. Because counsel, Mr. Mirugi Kariuki, was away, the court found that the appeal could not be heard that day. It accordingly removed the appeal from the day's list and stood it over generally, meaning no fixed return date was given. No issues were determined, no decision was made on the merits of the appeal or the High Court judgment below, and no costs order was issued. The order was made at Nakuru and bears the signature of R.O. Kwach, Judge of Appeal, with the copy certified by the Deputy Registrar. For briefing purposes, this record contains no binding propositions, holdings or citation treatment; it merely records an adjournment. Any analysis of the substantive dispute between the parties would require the eventual hearing judgment, which is not before us.
Key legal issues
#Legal principles established
#Court orders
#- 1.The appeal was taken out of the list for the day and stood over generally because counsel for a party was away.
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.C. No. 497 of 1990
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the document; the appeal arises under the ordinary appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal (the document records only an adjournment order).
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.
As Mr. Mirugi Kariuki is away this appeal cannot be heard today. It is accordingly taken out of the list for today and stood over generally.
Issues in the judgment
#material
The document is not a judgment on the merits; it is a procedural adjournment order signed by the Deputy Registrar, so no holdings, issues or costs can be extracted.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "ERASTUS CHEGE MAINA v KAMAU KOMU [1998] KECA 39 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Civil Appeal 50 of 1997. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/39/eng@1998-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.