Judgment[2015] KECA 141
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, MWILU & ODEK, JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2015 BETWEEN ABDI YUSUF MAALIM …………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………………………..……… RESPONDENT (An appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, (Justice Muchemi) dated 19th December, 2013 in H.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 138 of 2002 ABDIRAHMAN ALI ABDI …………………….................…………………….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ……………………………….............……….………………….
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: CHESONI, C. J, KWACH & OWUOR, JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.96 OF 1996 MARY MANGA MESHACK .............................. APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC .......................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 1997 BETWEEN 1. JAMES MUTHUI ............
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 1997 BETWEEN 1. JAMES MUTHUI ............
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Kimani v Republic High Court, at Mombasa March 18, 1991 Wambilyangah J Criminal Appeal Case No 266 of 1990 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No 269 of 1990 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Voi, JM Manyasi (Miss) RM) Evidence – identification evidence – accused momentarily encountering his attacker who later blindfolds him – whether circumstances conducive for proper identification - whether known foot marks can be used to support allegation of the pre
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
unreasonable to hold that the mere possession of the pistol on this date is sufficient to found a conclusion that the appellant participated in the robbery. Neither the trial magistrate nor the High Court pinpointed the evidence they considered cogent enough to justify the conclusion that the 1st appellant participated in the robbery.