Judgment[2025] KEHC 19055
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Abdirahman & another v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT GARISSA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E012 OF 2025 MN GICHERU, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010; IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10(1) & (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 47, 50(1), 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68,
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Agengo v Republic (Criminal Revision E268 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) (30 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION E268 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 30, 2024 BETWEEN DAVID MESIA AGENGO ........................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Agengo v Republic (Criminal Revision E268 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) (30 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION E268 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 30, 2024 BETWEEN DAVID MESIA AGENGO ........................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Otieno v Republic (Criminal Appeal 7 of 2012) [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) (30 December 2013) (Judgment) Marcella Nyabonyi Otieno v Republic [2013] eKLR Neutral citation: [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISII CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 OF 2012 EN MAINA & SO OKONG'O, JJ DECEMBER 30, 2013 BETWEEN MARCELLA NYABONYI OTIENO ...................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ........................................................................................
Division and case type: Environment and LandCivil Appeal
Ogolla v Onyango Otunga & Company Advocates (Civil Appeal E101 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) (27 December 2023) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL E101 OF 2023 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 27, 2023 BETWEEN GEORGE OGOLLA .................................................................................. APPELLANT AND ONYANGO OTUNGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES ......................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
that the wires were naked before he rented the premises and that the child had to be standing in order to touch the wires. The Respondent did not call any witness and the medical reports were produced by consent of both parties.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Otieno v Republic (Criminal Appeal 7 of 2012) [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) (30 December 2013) (Judgment) Marcella Nyabonyi Otieno v Republic [2013] eKLR Neutral citation: [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISII CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 OF 2012 EN MAINA & SO OKONG'O, JJ DECEMBER 30, 2013 BETWEEN MARCELLA NYABONYI OTIENO ...................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ........................................................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Alukhaba v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal E007 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) (23 December 2022) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA CRIMINAL APPEAL E007 OF 2021 WM MUSYOKA, J DECEMBER 23, 2022 BETWEEN JOHN ALUKHABA ................................................................................. APPELLANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ....................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL REVISION NO E106 OF 2021 ELIUD MWANIKI WAWERU.............................................................................1ST APPLICANT RAFIKI DEPOSIT TAKING MICROFINANCE (K) LTD.............................2ND APPLICANT VERSUS THE DIRECTORATE OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS, KIAMBU....1STRESPONDENT THE NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE............................................................2ND RESPONDENT THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
Division and case type: Environment and LandCase
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MISC. E13 OF 2020 ATLANTIS KENYA LIMITED......APPLICANT VERSUS CHEBUSWA LIMITED...............RESPONDENT Coram: Hon.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
I therefore find that the application for revision dated 29th July, 2020 is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The exparte orders granted on 30th July, 2020 staying the lower court proceedings are automatically vacated by the dismissal of the application.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CORAM: D. 54 OF 2018 BETWEEN ADERO OJANO ………………..……………………………….
Division and case type: CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISIONCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KOOME, OKWENGU & KANTAI, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2014 BETWEEN AGGREY CHITERI…………………….........................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC OF KENYA……....…..…………………..…RESPONDENT (An appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Majanja J.), dated 30th May, 2014 in High Court Petition No.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
24 of the Advocates Remuneration Order imposes that duty on the borrowers advocate. An order of specific performance presupposes a legal or equitable obligation on a person to perform it and since such a legal obligation does not flow from the security documents or the provisions of the law I have cited, the learned trial magistrate erred in ordering specific performance.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
24 of the Advocates Remuneration Order imposes that duty on the borrowers advocate. An order of specific performance presupposes a legal or equitable obligation on a person to perform it and since such a legal obligation does not flow from the security documents or the provisions of the law I have cited, the learned trial magistrate erred in ordering specific performance.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
We have taken into account the weighty submissions made for the respondents, regarding the essential principle of compliance with Orders issuing from a Court of law, just as we have closely adverted to the applicants’ case for a proper interpretation of the constitutional status of County Assembly privileges, operating within the scheme of the separationofpowers doctrine. As it is clear to us that the respondents’ case rests on fundamental constitutional questions not yet interpreted, and which