Version history
Akinyi v Ogwari & another · 4 versions since 1 September 2026
| Version | Date | Editor | Model | Change summary | Diff | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | 2 Sep 2026, 14:02 | Moderator | rh-brief-4.1 | Rewrote the bottom line and re-resolved the ¶12 pinpoint against the raw ruling. | v3 → v4 | Published |
| 3 | 2 Sep 2026, 11:47 | Moderator | rh-brief-4.1 | Tightened the ratio and corrected the citation block to the neutral citation. | v2 → v3 | Superseded |
| 2 | 1 Sep 2026, 16:20 | AI pipeline | rh-brief-4.0 | First full draft from all 48 paragraphs; quotes lifted with pinpoints. | v1 → v2 | Superseded |
| 1 | 1 Sep 2026, 16:18 | AI pipeline | rh-brief-4.0 | Extraction only — title, court, suit number, coram and outcome parsed. | initial | Superseded |
Diff · v3 → v4
unchanged ¶10 The threshold question is one of jurisdiction, and we must address it first, for without it we act in vain.
removed Bottom line: The appeal was incompetent because the Small Claims Court Act is silent on any further appeal.
added Bottom line: Article 163(3)(b)(ii) requires national legislation to prescribe appellate jurisdiction, and section 38 of the Small Claims Court Act instead makes the High Court the final appellate court.
changed Pinpoint: the quotation “as may be prescribed” now points to ¶12; version 3 pointed to ¶11.
unchanged ¶15 The notice of motion dated 14th November 2025 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Why every save is a version
A brief is evidence about a judgment, so the console keeps the whole trail: what the model produced, what a moderator changed, and which raw paragraphs the change was drawn from. Rolling back never deletes — restoring v3 writes v5 and leaves v4 in the record.