AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCriminal Appeal No. 22 of 2001
Stanley Cheruiyot Langat v Republic [2002] KECA 93 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal adjourned a criminal appeal because the appellant had no record of appeal, and ordered the registry to serve a fresh copy in good time.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This document is not a substantive appellate judgment but a short procedural order of the Court of Appeal at Nakuru in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2001, Stanley Cheruiyot Langat v Republic. The appeal lies from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kericho (Ondeyo J) dated 11 July 2000 in H.C.CR.C. No. 12 of 1998. The coram comprised Chunga CJ, Bosire JA and O'Kubasu JA, and the order was made and delivered at Nakuru on 19 February 2002. The court recorded that, in the circumstances narrated by the applicant (the appellant), he could not prosecute his appeal that day because he did not have the record of appeal. It therefore stood the appeal over to the Court's next session in Nakuru and directed the Deputy Registrar to ensure that the appellant was served with another record in good time to enable him to prepare for the appeal. No issue of law or fact was framed or determined, no authority or statutory provision was cited, and no costs order was made. The judgment of the High Court was neither affirmed, varied nor set aside; the appeal was simply adjourned, so the decision below stands undisturbed. The order is a single order of the whole court, with no separate or dissenting opinions, and it lays down no binding proposition of law for lower courts. Its significance for practitioners is procedural only: it records that an appellant without the record of appeal cannot prosecute the appeal at that session, and it illustrates the Court of Appeal's practice of adjourning such appeals while directing the Deputy Registrar to serve a fresh record in good time. The certified copy bears the signatures of all three judges.
Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant could prosecute his appeal at that session given that he did not have the record of appeal.
Key legal issues
#Legal principles established
#Court orders
#- 1.The appeal was stood over to the Court's next session in Nakuru.
- 2.The Deputy Registrar of the Court to ensure that the appellant is served with another record in good time to enable him to prepare for the appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kericho
- H.C.CR.C. No. 12 of 1998
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in the order; no constitutional or statutory provision is cited for the Court of Appeal's jurisdiction over this criminal appeal from 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.
In the circumstances narrated by the applicant, he cannot prosecute his appeal today as he does not have the record.
Accordingly, we stand over the appeal to this Court's next session in Nakuru.
Deputy Registrar of this Court to ensure that the appellant is served with another record in good time to enable him to prepare for the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#minor
The order refers to 'the applicant' although the cause heading styles the party as 'APPELLANT', an internal inconsistency in terminology; the document also contains only the order of the court, not a full judgment with reasons.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stanley Cheruiyot Langat v Republic [2002] KECA 93 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2001. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/93/eng@2002-02-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.