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 AppealDismissedCivil Appeal Appl. No. 79 of 1998

HON. JOHN NJOROGE MICHUKI & ANOTHER vs ANDREW MUNGAI MUTHEMBA & ANOTHER [1998] KECA 178 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
10 November 1998
RKR. O. KwachGPG. S. PallEOE. Owuor
108 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 dismissed Michuki and Muthemba's 1998 application in a pending civil appeal, ordering them to pay the respondents' costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an extremely brief ruling of the Court of Appeal at Nairobi (Kwach, Pall and Owuor, JJ.A) delivered on 10 November 1998 in Civil Appeal Application No. 79 of 1998. The applicants, Hon. John Njoroge Michuki and Rose Waruino Muthemba, had moved the court in an application within a pending civil appeal against Andrew Mungai Muthemba and Kent2azuga Hardware Ltd. The judgment does not disclose the nature of the application, the grounds advanced, or any supporting or opposing submissions; it records only the court's conclusion. The full bench, speaking through a single unanimous ruling, expressed the view that the application lacked merit and dismissed it, awarding the costs of the application to the respondents. No authorities were cited, no issues were framed for determination, and no reasons were given for the dismissal. As a two-sentence ruling, it establishes no binding legal proposition and contains no analysis capable of being relied on as precedent; its only operative content is the dismissal of the application and the costs order. The underlying appeal, if any, was not determined by this ruling, and the decision below, if any, was not disturbed. Practitioners should treat this entry as a procedural disposition only.

Key legal issues

#

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents

    The bench

    #

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

    RK
    majority
    GP
    majority
    EO
    majority

    Relief refused

    #

    The applicants' application (nature not stated in the ruling)

    The court found no merit in it

    p. 2

    Costs

    Dismissed with costs to the respondents

    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.

    We see no merit in the application. The same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
    p. 2disposition

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    material

    The ruling is a bare dismissal; it does not state the nature of the application, the grounds argued, or any reasoning, so holdings and issues cannot be extracted.

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "HON. JOHN NJOROGE MICHUKI & ANOTHER vs ANDREW MUNGAI MUTHEMBA & ANOTHER [1998] KECA 178 (KLR)", Case Analysis (1998). Civil Appeal Appl. No. 79 of 1998. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1998/178/eng@1998-11-10

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