Compare briefs
Read up to four briefs against each other, point by point. Each cell is the brief's own wording, aligned to the same question — so you can see where the courts are speaking to one another and where they are answering different questions.
Point by point
Nine points of comparison, drawn from the briefs themselves and pinned to the raw judgments behind them. Each column carries the full case name, linked to its brief; scroll sideways on a narrow screen.
| Point of comparison | Akinyi v Ogwari & another | Wafula v Maru | Eymoi v Republic | Kimweli v NSSF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court | Supreme Court | High Court | Supreme Court |
| Citation | Akinyi v Ogwari & another Petition (Application) E025 of 2025 [2026] KESC 9 (KLR) | Wafula v Maru Application E012 of 2025 [2026] KESC 4 (KLR) | Jamila Maalim Hussein Eymoi v Republic MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. E007 OF 2025 [2025] KEHC 4212 (KLR) | Kimweli & 46 others v National Social Security Fund Application E025 of 2025 [2026] KESC 6 (KLR) |
| Date | 23 January 2026 | 23 January 2026 | 8 April 2025 | 23 January 2026 |
| Outcome | Dismissed | Certification refused | Partially allowed | Dismissed |
| Coram | Koome, CJ & P Mwilu, DCJ & V-P Ibrahim, SCJ Wanjala, SCJ Njoki Ndungu, SCJ | Mwilu, DCJ & V-P Ibrahim, SCJ Wanjala, SCJ Njoki Ndungu, SCJ Ouko, SCJ | Ogola, J (single judge) | Mwilu, DCJ & V-P Ibrahim, SCJ Wanjala, SCJ Ouko, SCJ |
| Issues framed | 1 · Does the Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the Small Claims Court? 2 · If so, have the applicants met the threshold for review of the earlier ruling? | 1 · Does the intended appeal raise a point of law of general public importance? 2 · Does the Court of Appeal decision on the boundary of registered land transcend the dispute between these parties? | 1 · Is the court functus officio after sentence has been passed? 2 · Must time spent in remand count towards the term of imprisonment? | 1 · Should the Court extend time to file a petition of appeal out of time? 2 · Is the delay explained by exceptional circumstances within rule 53? |
| Holding | No jurisdiction. Article 163(3)(b)(ii) requires Parliament to prescribe the Court's appellate remit, and the Small Claims Court Act instead makes the High Court the final appellate court. Review refused. | Certification refused. The proposed ground was an invitation to re-argue the evidence on title, which the Court does not do on a second appeal. | The court is functus officio and cannot revisit the sentence, but the period already served in remand must be taken into account. The application succeeded only to that extent. | Extension refused. The delay of nine months was unexplained, and the prospects of the appeal did not by themselves justify the indulgence sought. |
| Ratio | The Court's appellate jurisdiction is not at large. Finality is a legislative choice and a fair hearing does not entail an endless succession of appeals. | A point of law of general public importance must be identified with precision and must matter beyond the litigants. An error in the appreciation of evidence is not such a point. | Functus officio protects the finality of a sentence; section 333(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code nonetheless requires the sentencing court to credit remand time. | The discretion to extend time is exercised on settled principles: length of delay, reason for it, prejudice to the respondent, and the chances of the appeal succeeding. No single factor is decisive. |
| Orders | Notice of motion dismissed with costs to the respondents. | Application dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs. | Sentence reduced by the eleven months spent in custody; application otherwise refused. | Application dismissed with costs to the respondent. |
Where they agree and where they diverge
Two agreements run through all four briefs, and two sharp divergences separate the criminal matter from the three civil ones.
All four briefs begin from the same place: a court's power to hear a matter comes from the Constitution or from a statute, and never from the consent of the parties. Akinyi ¶3, Wafula ¶9, Eymoi ¶14, Kimweli ¶11.
Each court treats finality as an element of a fair system rather than a denial of a remedy. Three of the four applications failed because the applicant could not show why the ordinary limit should be lifted.
Akinyi, Wafula and Kimweli turn on the Supreme Court's appellate remit under Article 163(3)(b)(ii). Eymoi turns on the High Court's power over a sentence already passed. Different courts, different tests, different outcomes.
Eymoi produced a concrete correction: eleven months credited against the sentence. The other three produced no remedy at all — dismissal, refusal of certification, refusal of extension of time.
Keep this comparison for the hearing.
Save the four briefs to your desk, export the table as a note of argument, and be told when any of them is cited again.