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: FamilySuccession Cause
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: 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: FamilySuccession Cause
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: 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: 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
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: FamilySuccession Cause
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: FamilySuccession 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: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 79 OF 2007 ANNE KENDI MBAYA............................................................................................PETITIONER VERSUS JONATHAN M’NKANATA M’MUGWIKA............................................................OBJECTOR R U L I N G This is an application by petitioner Anne Kendi Mbaya brought under Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL APPEAL NO.215 OF 2009 ANALIK WEKESA…………………………………….……….……....1ST APPELLANT DIOCESE OF LODWAR (Thro’ its Registered Trustees...........….........2ND APPELLANT VERSUS HELLEN WAIRIMU MWANGI & SIMON NJOROGE MWANGI (Suing as the Administrators of the estate ofJAMES KANENE MWANGI (Deceased)….................……....RESPONDENT RULING The Memorandum of appeal was filed on 21st October, 2009 simultaneously with application for stay of execution. The stay was gran
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
When the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsels appearing in the matter recorded a consent order to have the appeal disposed of by written submissions. In my view this appeal will be determined by a single point of law without considering the merits of the case.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 18 OF 2003 ALI AHMED NAJI ……………………………..……………..
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 616 of 2009 DR. MAINA MWEA T/A SPAX PUB & RESTAURANT ......................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS GEORGE KIMANI NJUKI ………………..…………… ………...1ST DEFENDANT GEPRGE WAINAINA REBO…………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1.