Judgment[1997] KEHC 18
REPUBLIC v CHARO NZAI KATANA
High Court at Mombasa
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Case 49 of 1995 REPUBLIC…………………....………..………………..PROSECUTOR VERSUS CHARO NZAI KATANA..........................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OMOLO, LAKHA JJ.A. J.A.) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL CASE NO 638 OF 1992 ABEDINEGO MUTISO MUSYOKI …………..APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………..............……RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
then ordered that the said occupants be summoned to appear before it to show cause why a closing order should not be made. The affected tenants duly appeared before the Court including an employee of the applicant known as Harrison Mulwa.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS CRIMINAL CASE NO.44 OF 1991 TOM PIEMO OMBURA …………) SHIKUDHANI AJWANG RUMAYA ………………. ACCUSEDS VERSUS REPUBLIC ………………… ………………… ……….
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
The intention as can be detected from the evidence was to beat the two boys in order to get them to produce the money. The next question is whether the intention to beat or chastise the deceased and Crispo so that they produce the stolen money was a common intention shared by all the four accused persons at the time they were beating the two boys.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU crim apps 235,236,238 of 90 GARI & 2 OTHERS………..…………..PLAINTIFF V REPUBLIC……………………….………DEFENDANT ed) (From Original Conviction and Sentence of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kisumu (C.O. Ong’undi, Esq, P.M.) in Criminal Case No 189 of 1989) Evidence – secondary evidence – notice to produce a document – Evidence Act (cap 80) section 69 – to whom such notice is given – when such notice can be dispensed with – party who does not have po
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL (REVISION) CASE NO 25 OF 1990 REPUBLIC…………….………APPLICANT VERSUS MOHAMED…..……………..RESPONDENT (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No 496 of 1990 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa, G M Njuguna, Esq, RM) RULING A witness by the name S Pandya was summoned to appear before Resident Magistrate in the above Criminal Case on 14/8/90 to give evidence. According to the record of the court; the witness did not appear
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL CASE NO 54 OF 1988 REPUBLIC…………………………..……….....…..PROSECUTOR VERSUS MOHAMMED SHIRAZ HUSSEN …….…………………ACCUSED
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL CASE NO 54 OF 1988 REPUBLIC…………………………..……….....…..PROSECUTOR VERSUS MOHAMMED SHIRAZ HUSSEN …….…………………ACCUSED
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA HIGH COURT AT KISII CRIMINAL CASE NO 16 OF 1990 REPUBLIC………………………….. PROSECUTOR VERSUS YIENDE…………………………..........…ACCUSSED
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCriminal Case
tends as a direction to the Court hearing the application for Order of Prohibition to grant the Order without using its own discretion whether it should do so. The Attorney-General did not need any authority, nor a reminder, that in the light of the opinions expressed by the Constitutional Court he could terminate the proceedings even when coupled with a wet hope that he would do so.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram:Madan, Potter JJA & Chesoni Ag JA ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 1982 BETWEEN J M...............................................................................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC...............................................................................RESPONDENT