Judgment[2021] KEHC 817
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
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: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
Moses Kiprotich Rutto & Others v Telkom Kenya Limited (Cause 139 (N) of 2009) [2014] KEIC 9 (KLR) (Employment and Labour) (22 December 2014) (Ruling) Moses Kiprotich Rutto & Others v Telkom Kenya Limited [2014] eKLR Neutral citation: [2014] KEIC 9 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR CAUSE 139 (N) OF 2009 NZIOKI WA MAKAU, J DECEMBER 22, 2014 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR CAUSE 139 (N) OF 2009 NZIOKI WA MAKAU
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 47 OF 2011 In the matter of the Estate of MZEE OMARI (Deceased) ABDALLA MUTEMBEI GISAGA.................................APPLICANT VERSUS PAMELA GACHERI PATRISIO.........................1ST RESPONDENT CRISUS MICHENI NDEKE (MWALIMU)..........2ND RESPONDENT NYAGA ISMAEL (SMATEX)............................3RD RESPONDENT JOSEPH MURITHI (MUEMBU).......................4TH RESPONDENT NJAGI NTIBA (CHIBU)...........................
Division and case type: Employment and Labour RelationsCase number Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CAUSE NO. 96 OF 2013 BERNARD DAMUNGA NDUNDA...........................................................................CLAIMANT -VERSUSKERIO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY...........................................................RESPONDENT (Before Hon.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 36 OF 2008 ADBULHAKIM MOHAMED HASSAN HUSSEIN..............APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Ombija, J.) dated 26th March, 2008 in H.C.Cr. 196 of 2003) ***************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Abdulhakim Mohamed Hassan Hussein, the appellant herein was arraigned in the superior c
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
conduct of the defendant’s representatives could not excuse the failure to comply with the unless order the pleading had property been struck out.” The general principle is that orders of the court must be obeyed and a litigant who deliberately and without proper excuse disobeys such an order is not allowed to proceed. Singh Gitau for the Respondent did not come to court to argue his client’s position.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Misc Appli 1670 of 2007 ABID ALI HASHIM……...………..……………….APPLICANT VERSUS ANTONY KIHONGE MUHIA …..……………RESPONDENT RULING Before me is a notice of motion filed pursuant to Section 18 (1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant seek an order of the court to transfer Nairobi CMCCC No.
Division and case type: Environment and LandCivil Suit
The litigants argument is found at page 5 of the ruling 2nd paragraph line 10 from the bottom: “that order vii rule 1(2) Civil Procedure Rules is silent as to whether each plaintiff should file a verifying affidavit, that there is no need for filing affidavit by each plaintiff as what is to be verified is the correctness of the averments and not their truthfulness, that the truthfulness of the claim is a matter for the trial, that the verifying affidavit of the first respondent is sufficient
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Suit 379 of 2004 ANTHONY AMBAKA KEGODE ……….............................……………..1ST PLAINTIFF UHAI LIMITED………………………….............................………………2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS FOUR NINETY INVESTMENT LIMITED…….............................…..1ST DEFENDANT ADAM GRAIG OGDEN …………..……………..........................……2ND DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN SAFARI AIR LIMITED………..........................….3RD DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 237 of 1999 ABDALLA A. BAJABER….………………….………………….………PLAINTIFFS VERSUS CHEPKWE HOLDINGS LTD & ENOCK TUITOK .…………………………………………………….DEFENDANTS R U L I N G This is an application brought by the defendants under Order 9B Rule 8, Order 21 Rules 22, 25 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS Civil Suit 1175 of 2005 ADAM THUMI…………………………………………………………….. PLAINTIFF VERSUS MAINA KIRIRO………………………………………...……………… DEFENDANT RULING This Ruling is made in the Chamber Summons application dated 22nd September 2005 brought under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI Misc Crimi Appli 35 of 2005 DAVID WAINAINA MUBEA ………………………………………….. APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………… RESPONDENT R U L I N G By an application dated 14th July 2005 brought under section 357 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, David Wainaina Mubea (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) seeks to be admitted to bail pending the hearing of his appeal.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Civil Suit 125 of 2004 ABDI YASIN KOIKAI…………...………………………….........…..………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS OLE NAKUYAKI SAMSON & 11 OTHERS ………….....…………..….DEFENDANTS RULING The 1st to 10th defendants raised a preliminary objection to the Plaintiff’s suit on the grounds that the suit was misconceived, incompetent and bad in law as it contravened the provisions of Section 28 of the Land (Group Representatives) Act Cap 287. They also said that it contravened
Division and case type: COMMERCIAL DIVISIONCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI CIVIL SUIT NO 1421 OF 2000 BILSON STEPHEN MUTUKU ……………….…………………..……...PLAINTIFF VERSUS KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK…………………………..……...1ST DEFENDANT DILIGENT AUCTIONEERS LTD ………………..…………….....2ND DEFENDANT SAMMY GICHUKI WAIGWA ……………………...………..……3RD DEFENDANT R U L I N G The 3rd defendant’s chamber summons dated 14th May 2004 is brought under Order 16 Rule 5 (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant seeks an order for the di
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2004 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour RelationsCase number Cause
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI. KENYA UNION OF DOMESTIC, HOTELS, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, HOSPITALS & ALLIED WORKERS................Claimants.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 73 OF 2002 DIETRICH BOELLING ….…….……………..
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI ADOPTION CAUSE NO. 89 OF 2003 IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 2001 SECTION 162 BABY DK (AN INFANT) RULING This is an application for international adoption.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 74 of 2002 BEATRICE AGOLA OPONDO………...........................................…………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS SWALEH SALIM SAID………….....................................…………………………..DEFENDANT