Citator
How later courts have treated a judgment — followed, distinguished, not followed or overruled — with the paragraph each treatment turns on. Loaded: Akinyi v Ogwari & another, the Supreme Court's ruling on the appellate jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.
Akinyi v Ogwari & another
Akinyi v Ogwari & another (Petition (Application) E025 of 2025) [2026] KESC 9 (KLR) (23 January 2026) (Ruling)
No court has doubted the holding. The two decisions that distinguished it did so on the statute in issue, not on the principle: an appellate route expressly prescribed by Parliament, as in the ELRC Act, is unaffected. The one decision that did not follow it treated the observation about finality as obiter. The jurisdictional rule itself stands untouched.
33% of citations are positive; 25% are critical or distinguishing; the balance merely mention the case. Last checked 12 July 2026 — 14 days ago.
Citing cases
Ten of the twelve later decisions that cite Akinyi. Each row shows the treatment, the paragraph it turns on, and the words the classifying reviewer relied on.
Followed Akinyi to strike out a petition brought from a decision of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal: the Tribunal's own statute makes the High Court the final appellate court, so no appeal lies to the Supreme Court.
Followed the holding that appellate jurisdiction must be prescribed by national legislation, and held that no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from a Small Claims Court determination under section 38 of that Act.
Applied Akinyi where a party sought a further appeal from a decision of the Rent Restriction Tribunal: the Court held that finality was a deliberate legislative choice and that Article 50 guarantees a fair hearing, not an endless succession of appeals.
The High Court applied Akinyi when declining to revisit its own earlier judgment, holding that the Supreme Court's reading of Article 163(3)(b)(ii) settles the appellate route and leaves no room for a discretionary review.
Distinguished. The appeal arose from the Employment and Labour Relations Court, whose appellate route to the Court of Appeal is expressly prescribed by sections 17 and 25 of the ELRC Act — so there was no legislative silence of the kind considered in Akinyi.
Distinguished on the facts. The applicant appealed, not from a Small Claims Court determination, but from the Court of Appeal's ruling on costs — a matter in which section 21 of the Supreme Court Act does prescribe the Court's jurisdiction.
The Court declined to follow the observation that finality is itself an element of a fair hearing, holding it obiter: the point was made in a civil appeal from the Small Claims Court and does not govern the criminal appellate structure.
Considered in argument on whether the Court's advisory jurisdiction is affected by its appellate jurisdiction. The Court recorded the submission drawn from Akinyi and found it unnecessary to decide the point.
Cited for the proposition that a court must satisfy itself of jurisdiction before the merits, but the appeal was determined on limitation and the passage was not applied.
Noted Akinyi in a survey of the Court's recent jurisdictional decisions; the appeal turned on the meaning of “assessment” in the Tax Procedures Act and was allowed on that ground.
Authorities this case relies on
The seven authorities the ruling itself draws on. These are the cases to read before you argue that Akinyi is wrong, because the Court has already considered them.
| Authority | Court | Citation | How it was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others | Supreme Court | [2012] eKLR | Relied on for the principle that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation, never from the agreement of the parties. |
| Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd | Court of Appeal | [1989] KLR 1 | Applied at ¶10: the question of jurisdiction must be settled before the merits are considered. |
| Okeno v Republic | Court of Appeal | [1972] EA 32 | Considered on the appellate court's duty to re-evaluate the record for itself. |
| Odinga & another v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others | Supreme Court | [2017] eKLR | Cited on the finality of appellate determinations and on the standard of proof. |
| Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services & 5 others | Supreme Court | [2014] eKLR | Cited on the limits of the Court's appellate remit and on costs against a public body. |
| Speaker of the National Assembly v James Njenga Karume | Court of Appeal | [1992] eKLR | Cited for the rule that where the Constitution or a statute gives a court jurisdiction, it must be exercised in the manner and to the extent the instrument provides. |
| In the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission | Supreme Court | Advisory Opinion No. 2 of 2011 | Cited on the Court's jurisdiction as a creature of the Constitution, and on the difference between appellate and advisory jurisdiction. |
Related decisions
Decided on the same question, the same day, or from the same line of authority. Useful when the case you are briefing is one step away from Akinyi.
Decided the same day as Akinyi. Certification of appeal refused for want of a point of law of general public importance — the practice the Court applies to every application that follows a jurisdictional refusal.
Petition struck out because certification of general public importance had not been established. Read with Akinyi, it shows how the Court disposes of matters that should never have reached it.
Leave to appeal out of time refused. The application is a companion to Akinyi in the Court's January 2026 sitting and turns on the same threshold: jurisdiction first, then merit.
The Court's leading statement on the limits of its own appellate remit and on the effect of Article 163(3)(b) where a statute is silent. Frequently cited alongside Akinyi.
How treatment is determined
Treatment is a judgment about a judgment. Here is how it is recorded, and what to check before you rely on it.
- What counts as a citation?
- A later judgment that names the case, quotes it, or relies on its reasoning, whether or not it appears in a footnote. A case listed in a schedule of authorities without any discussion is recorded as mentioned and is not counted here.
- How is each treatment classified?
- By reading the citing paragraph, not by searching for keywords. Followed: the later court adopts the holding and applies it to the facts. Distinguished: the court accepts the holding but finds that it does not govern, because the statute, the facts or the procedural route differ. Not followed: the court declines to apply the holding, usually as obiter or on the basis that it was wrongly decided. Overruled: a court of higher or equal authority holds the decision wrong in law. Considered: the case is discussed without the holding being adopted or rejected.
- Who decides the classification?
- An extraction pass reads the citing judgment and proposes a treatment with the paragraph that supports it. Every classification is then read by a person before it appears here, and the reviewer's note is shown in the row so you can judge it yourself.
- Does a distinguished case stop being good law?
- No. Distinguishing is a court saying the case does not apply to these facts — not that it was wrongly decided. A distinguished authority remains binding on the courts below, and it remains worth citing if your facts are closer to the original decision than to the later one.
- What if the treatment is doubtful?
- It is recorded as considered, with a note, and flagged for a second review. Where a judgment is ambiguous — a passing reference in a summary of submissions, say — the citator says so rather than guessing at a treatment.
- How quickly is the citator updated?
- Within an hour of a judgment entering the corpus. The proposed treatment is confirmed by a reviewer within one working day, and a case can be reclassified at any time if a later decision changes the picture.
- What about negative treatment I have seen in a judgment that is not here?
- Send it to us and it will be added. The citator only reports what it can show you the paragraph for, so an absence of negative treatment is not evidence that none exists — always check the most recent decisions in your own search.
- Can I rely on the citator in court?
- Use it to find the authority and to see how it has been treated. Then read the citing paragraph yourself before you tell a court that a case is still good law. Every classification here links to the paragraph it was drawn from.
Using this in a submission
Two paragraphs of this ruling will do most of the work in a later matter.
Four courts have now applied Akinyi, and none has doubted it. If you are arguing that a further appeal lies, the case is against you and the sensible course is to meet it directly: identify the statute you say prescribes the appeal, and if there is none, explain why Article 163(3)(b)(ii) is satisfied without one.
If you are the party resisting the appeal, the value of the case is not the outcome — a dismissal in 2026 — but the route. Cite ¶3 for the proposition that appellate jurisdiction must be prescribed, and ¶10 for the order of decision: jurisdiction first, merits only if jurisdiction is established.
¶3 for legislative prescription, ¶10 for jurisdiction before the merits, ¶12 for the meaning of “final”. Each pinpoints straight into the raw judgment.
Before relying on any authority, open the citator. Nine of ten treatment questions are answered by one paragraph in the citing judgment.
Wanjala confirms the limit of Akinyi: where a statute expressly prescribes an appeal to the Court of Appeal, nothing in the decision takes it away.