Gicheru Chambers) Beta
Read this first — limitations.
- Patterns reflect published decisions only.
- This is not an assessment of private character, integrity or bias.
- Outcome distributions are per case-type and not comparable across courts/years.
- Based on 13 decision(s); small samples are indicative only.
- Name normalization is automatic and may merge or split judges incorrectly.
Main subject areas
Activity
Published decisions from 1996 to 2005; busiest year 2000 (4 decisions).
Documented outcomes by case type
- Appeal: Dismissed (3); The application is granted. (1); The applicant's application for extension of time to file an (1); The application for leave to file a fresh notice of appeal a (1)
- Civil Appeal: The applicant's application for leave to file a Memorandum o (1); The applicant's Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs. (1); The application was granted. (1)
- Criminal Appeal: The application is dismissed. (1); The application is struck out. (1)
- Application for extension of time to fil: The applicant's application for an extension of time to file (1)
- Civil Application: The applicant's application to strike out the respondent's n (1)
Counts are per published decision as classified by AI; not comparable across courts or years.
Documented reasoning patterns
- Most common procedural postures: Application for extension of time to file an appeal (2), Application for leave to file Memorandum of Appeal out of time (1), Application for extension of time to file Notice of Appeal (1)
- [Civil Appeal] outcomes — The applicant's application for leave to file a Memorandum of Appeal out of time is granted.: 1/3, The applicant's Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs.: 1/3, The application was granted.: 1/3
- [Criminal Appeal] outcomes — The application is dismissed.: 1/2, The application is struck out.: 1/2
- [Appeal] outcomes — Dismissed: 3/6, The application is granted.: 1/6, The applicant's application for extension of time to file and serve Notice of Appeal is granted.: 1/6, The application for leave to file a fresh notice of appeal and record of appeal out of time is granted.: 1/6
- [Application for extension of time to file appeal] outcomes — The applicant's application for an extension of time to file his appeal is granted.: 1/1
- [Civil Application] outcomes — The applicant's application to strike out the respondent's notice of appeal is denied.: 1/1
Writing characteristics
- Median judgment length ~3058 words
- Single-judge
Remedy patterns
- The costs occasioned by this application are awarded to the respondents in any event. (1)
- Award of costs to the respondent in the amount of K.Shs. 3,000/-. (1)
- Execution in respect of the costs to ensue if not paid within 30 days from the date of this ruling. (1)
Citation patterns
- Avg cited authorities/decision: 0.0
Sample decisions
James Ombere Ockotch v East African Building Society & 2 others [1996] KECA 24 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [1996] KECA 24 (KLR) · 20 September 1996
FREDRICK MUVANDI KIOKO vs REPUBLIC [1997] KECA 175 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [1997] KECA 175 (KLR) · 26 February 1997
Yusuf Lahdad Shahrad & another v Zubedabanu M. Abdow & 4 others [1997] KECA 190 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [1997] KECA 190 (KLR)
John Githinji Wangondu v Raphael Gitau Njau & 5 others [1997] KECA 197 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [1997] KECA 197 (KLR) · 2 October 1997
Wilson Kenyenga v Joel Ombori [1998] KECA 176 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [1998] KECA 176 (KLR)
KAMSONS LIMITED vs NICHOLAS MAKAA [1998] KECA 184 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [1998] KECA 184 (KLR) · 9 October 1998
A-D AVIATION (AIRCHARTER) LIMITED vs INTERNATIONAL AIRBOATS LIMITED [2000] KECA 134 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [2000] KECA 134 (KLR) · 3 July 2000
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED v STEPHEN KIRUMBA GERALD [2000] KECA 194 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [2000] KECA 194 (KLR) · 11 February 2000
SAMUEL KIBE vs BENSON MURIGI NJUGUNA & JOHN KAMUNYU MURIGI [2000] KECA 262 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [2000] KECA 262 (KLR)
KALANG ENTERPRISES vs DR. NJUGUNA NDUNGU [2000] KECA 314 (KLR)
Court of Appeal · [2000] KECA 314 (KLR)