Judgment[2008] KEHC 253
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Appeal 860 of 2004 BLUESHIELD INSURANCE CO. LTD……...…APPELLANT VERSUS SAMUEL NYAGA NGURUKIRI…..…………..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 64 of 1995 CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY TABLIGH FLYSABULLAHI MARKAZ SELF HELP GROUP..APPELLANTS VERSUS DAVID MOTUKU NZAU …………….................................................................……...…..…… RESPONDENT Corum: J. Nzei Advocate for Appellant/Applicant Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
That evidence so far as it was adduced by the respondent fell foul of the requirements of rule 5 of Order 75: it failed to establish that the appellant was “the relevant “person”. The upshot of that is that the High Court did not have admiralty jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
power to make nor was there any appeal from the order for possession for reconstruction. The time to consider whether there was to be a true reconstruction was when the Tribunal made its order of February 9, 1976.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (Coram: Platt, Apaloo JJA & Masime Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 1986 BETWEEN OKONG’O...........................................................................APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOTHER..............................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Maweu v Kiu Ranching & Farming Cooperative Society Ltd Court of Appeal, at Nairobi September 4, 1985 Hancox, Nyarangi JJA & Platt Ag JA Civil Appeal No 2 of 1983 (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court at Nairobi, Porter J) Cases 1. Mwangi Githu v Livingstone Ndeete & Others, Court of Appeal No 4 of 1979 Referred 2.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
What, today, is the correct approach of a court to an application for summary judgment under order XXXV rule 1 where there is a claim on a note and the defence is a set-off or counterclaim? Should the payment due on it be held up until the trial of the set-off or counterclaim has been heard?