Judgment[2025] KEELC 18646
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and LandLand Case
optional, rather, it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not...The courts should not fold their hands in helplessness and watch as their orders are disobeyed with impunity left, right and centre. This would amount to abdication of our sacrosanct duty bestowed on us by the Constitution.
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: 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: 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: Environment and LandLand Case
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: Environment and LandLand Case
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 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: Environment and LandLand Case
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: Environment and LandLand Case
the applicant has met the threshold as set in the Mrao case and I see no reason to deny her the orders sought pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The subject matter of the suit being land, I find and hold that damages may not be an adequate remedy to the plaintiff.
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 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: CriminalCriminal Case
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: CriminalCriminal Case
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: Environment and LandLand Case
That this Honourable Court be pleased to revive this suit which abated by this Court's order on 2nd July, 2012. That this Honourable Court be pleased to retain the Inhibition Order lodged upon the suit land and to restrain the Defendant from wasting, cutting trees and/or vegetation or anything growing on the suit premises and from harassing the Applicant or the heirs or Dependants of the late Plaintiff until the determination of this suit.