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 AppealAllowedCriminal Appeal 165 of 01

CHRISTOPHER OKORO vs REPUBLIC [2002] KECA 95 (KLR)

Court of Appeal of Kenya
22 January 2002
ALA. A. Lakha
88 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 gave a criminal appellant more time to file his appeal after the State raised no objection.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This document is a short single-judge order of the Court of Appeal at Malindi, made at Mombasa on 22 January 2002 by A. A. Lakha, JA, in Criminal Appeal 165 of 01, Christopher Okoro v Republic. The applicant, Christopher Okoro, sought an extension of time within which to file his criminal appeal against the Republic. Miss Mwaniki, state counsel for the respondent, did not oppose the application. On that basis, the judge extended the time for filing the appeal and deemed the appeal already filed to have been filed within the extended time. The order is interlocutory and procedural: it determines nothing on the merits of the underlying criminal appeal, creates no binding precedent, cites no authorities or statutory provisions, and makes no order as to costs. The decision below, if any, is not identified and was not disturbed. The record consists only of the order, the judge's signature block, and a certification by the Deputy Registrar that it is a true copy of the original. For briefing purposes, the only substantive content is the grant of unopposed extension of time and the deeming provision regularising the filing of the appeal.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether time for filing the appeal should be extended

Key legal issues

#
01

Extension of time for filing appeal

Holding

Time was extended, with the State counsel not objecting

Reasoning

The single judge granted the extension on the unopposed application of the applicant, noting that state counsel Miss Mwaniki did not object. The appeal already filed was deemed filed within the extended time. This is an interlocutory order without developed reasoning.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Time for filing the appeal is extended so that the appeal filed is deemed to have been filed within such extended time

    The bench

    #

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

    AL
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    Jurisdiction invoked
    Not stated in the order; the Court of Appeal's extension-of-time jurisdiction over criminal appeals

    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.

    Miss Mwaniki, state counsel, not objecting time is extended for the filing of appeal so that the appeal filed is deemed to have been filed within such extended time.
    p. 2extension of time order
    Made at Mombasa this 22nd day of January, 2002.
    p. 2final order / disposition date

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    minor

    The document is a brief single-judge order, not a full reasoned judgment; it contains no coram listing beyond the judge's signature and no formal heading identifying the nature of the application

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "CHRISTOPHER OKORO vs REPUBLIC [2002] KECA 95 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Criminal Appeal 165 of 01. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/95/eng@2002-01-22

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