[2000] KECA 97 (KLR)
The Court of Appeal, having considered the draft judgment of Ole Keiwua, J.A., agreed that the appeal should be allowed. The court found that the High Court's ruling and order were not sustainable in law and that the appellants were entitled to the reliefs sought. The court adopted the reasoning and orders proposed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2000] KECA 97 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Major M. I. Musyoka; Appellant: Major A. H. Amin; Appellant: Captain R. W. Mutisya; Appellant: Snr. Sgt. H. M. Matheka; Appellant: Sgt. C. Mutua Kyoa; Respondent: The Chief of the General Staff Armed Forces of Kenya; Respondent: The Commander of the Kenya Army; Respondent: The Commandant DOD C.A.U.; Respondent: The Presiding Officer of the Court Martial; Respondent: The Members of the Court Martial
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Court Station
- Court of Appeal at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 84 of ??
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Appeals Process, Court Martial Procedure
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Major M. I. Musyoka
Appellant
Major A. H. Amin
Appellant
Captain R. W. Mutisya
Appellant
Snr. Sgt. H. M. Matheka
Appellant
Sgt. C. Mutua Kyoa
Appellant
The Chief of the General Staff Armed Forces of Kenya
Respondent
The Commander of the Kenya Army
Respondent
The Commandant DOD C.A.U.
Respondent
The Presiding Officer of the Court Martial
Respondent
The Members of the Court Martial
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court's ruling and order in H.C. Misc. C. No. 318 of 2000 was correct in law.
- 2 Whether the appellants were entitled to the reliefs sought against the respondents in relation to the court martial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court of Appeal, having considered the draft judgment of Ole Keiwua, J.A., agreed that the appeal should be allowed. The court found that the High Court's ruling and order were not sustainable in law and that the appellants were entitled to the reliefs sought. The court adopted the reasoning and orders proposed in the lead judgment, with all members of the bench concurring. The appeal was therefore allowed in terms of the orders set out in the lead judgment.
Court Disposition
appeal allowed
Orders
- The appeal is allowed in terms of the orders proposed in the lead judgment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA & KEIWUA, JJ.A. CIVIL APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2000
BETWEEN
MAJOR M. I. MUSYOKA .............................1ST APPELLANT MAJOR A. H. AMIN ................................2ND APPELLANT CAPTAIN R. W. MUTISYA ...........................3RD APPELLANT SNR. SGT. H. M. MATHEKA .........................4TH APPELLANT SGT. C. MUTUA KYOA ..............................5TH APPELLANT AND THE CHIEF OF THE GENERAL STAFF ARMED FORCES OF KENYA ..................................1ST RTHEES POCNODMEMNATND ER OF THE KENYA ARMY ..................2ND RTHEES POCNODMEMNATN DANT DOD C.A.U. ........................3RD RTHEES POPNRDEESINDTI NG OFFICER OF THE COURT MARTIAL .......4TH RTHEES POMNEDMBEENRTS OF THE COURT MARTIAL .................5TH RESPONDENT
(Appeal from a Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr. Justice Githinji) dated 4th April, 2000
in H.C.MISC. C. NO. 318 OF 2000) *******************
JUDGMENT OF GICHERU, J.A.
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Ole Keiwua, J.A. I agree that this appeal should be allowed in terms of the orders proposed by him and as Lakha, J.A. agree, it is so ordered.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 7th day of July, 2000.
J. E. GICHERU
-------------------
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR