Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
Court of AppealOtherCivil Application No. NAI. 450 of 2001 (UR.239/2001)

United Insurance Co. Ltd v Lawrence Musyoka Wambua T/A LM Wambua & Co. Advocates [2002] KECA 221 (KLR)

Court of Appeal
17 January 2002
173 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

#

The Court of Appeal only adjourned United Insurance's injunction application after counsel's bereavement — no legal issue was decided.

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 Nairobi, made on 17 January 2002 by a full bench of three Judges of Appeal: Omolo, Lakha and Owuor JJ.A. It arises in Civil Application No. NAI. 450 of 2001 (UR.239/2001), in which United Insurance Co. Ltd, as applicant and intended appellant, sought an injunction pending the lodging, hearing and determination of an intended appeal against the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Visram J) dated 26 September 2001 in H.C.C.C No. 1427 of 2000. The respondent is Lawrence Musyoka Wambua, trading as LM Wambua & Co. Advocates. The order records a single event. On the hearing date, Mr. Bonyo, holding brief for Mr. Makoloo, requested an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Makoloo was bereaved. Mr. Kiukumi, appearing for the respondent, did not object. The court granted the adjournment, stood the matter over to a date to be taken at the Registry, and directed that the costs of that day be costs in the application. No issue of law was argued or decided. The court expressed no view on the merits of the injunction application or of the intended appeal, cited no statute and no authority, and made no binding pronouncement. The ruling of Visram J remains undisturbed, and the injunction application remains pending, awaiting a hearing date to be fixed at the Registry. Because the only order made was an adjournment with costs reserved into the application, the outcome is classified as 'other' rather than allowed or dismissed, and no holdings, binding propositions or authorities are recorded.

Key legal issues

#

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Adjournment granted at the request of counsel for the applicant, unopposed by the respondent; the matter stood over to a date to be taken at the Registry.
    2. 2.Costs of the hearing date (17 January 2002) made costs in the application.

    The bench

    #

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

    majority
    majority
    majority
    On appeal from
    High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
    H.C.C.C No. 1427 of 2000
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Not stated in the document. The application is described only as one for an injunction pending the lodging, hearing and determination of an intended appeal from the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi; no constitutional or statutory provision is cited.

    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.

    Mr. Bonyo holding brief for Mr. Makoloo requests for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Makoloo is bereaved. Mr. Kiukumi not objecting, we shall grant the application.
    p. 1Unopposed adjournment granted on account of lead counsel's bereavement
    This matter is hereby stood over to a date to be taken at the Registry. Today's costs shall be in the application.
    p. 1Disposition - adjournment with the costs of the day reserved into the application

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    material

    The document is a procedural order granting an adjournment, not a substantive judgment. It contains no determination of the injunction application, no issues framed or decided, no holdings, no authorities and no disposition of the intended appeal; the sparse fields in this brief reflect the document itself.

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "United Insurance Co. Ltd v Lawrence Musyoka Wambua T/A LM Wambua & Co. Advocates [2002] KECA 221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2002). Civil Application No. NAI. 450 of 2001 (UR.239/2001). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2002/221/eng@2002-01-17

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