Judgment[2011] KEHC 407
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI ELECTION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2008 IN THE MATTER OF : THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT (CHAPTER 7, LAWS OF KENYA) AND THE REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER AND IN THE MATTER OF: ELECTION FOR THE KANDARA PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE PETITION OF ALICE MUTHONI WAHOME BETWEEN ALICE MUTHONI WAHOME ………….…..........…………PETITIONER VERSUS JAMES MAINA KAMAU …..……….….……...……..1ST RESPONDENT REUBEN WARUI CHEGE ………
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
conduct of the defendant’s representatives could not excuse the failure to comply with the unless order the pleading had property been struck out.” The general principle is that orders of the court must be obeyed and a litigant who deliberately and without proper excuse disobeys such an order is not allowed to proceed. Singh Gitau for the Respondent did not come to court to argue his client’s position.
Division and case type: Environment and LandCivil Suit
The litigants argument is found at page 5 of the ruling 2nd paragraph line 10 from the bottom: “that order vii rule 1(2) Civil Procedure Rules is silent as to whether each plaintiff should file a verifying affidavit, that there is no need for filing affidavit by each plaintiff as what is to be verified is the correctness of the averments and not their truthfulness, that the truthfulness of the claim is a matter for the trial, that the verifying affidavit of the first respondent is sufficient
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Suit 379 of 2004 ANTHONY AMBAKA KEGODE ……….............................……………..1ST PLAINTIFF UHAI LIMITED………………………….............................………………2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS FOUR NINETY INVESTMENT LIMITED…….............................…..1ST DEFENDANT ADAM GRAIG OGDEN …………..……………..........................……2ND DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN SAFARI AIR LIMITED………..........................….3RD DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS Civil Suit 1175 of 2005 ADAM THUMI…………………………………………………………….. PLAINTIFF VERSUS MAINA KIRIRO………………………………………...……………… DEFENDANT RULING This Ruling is made in the Chamber Summons application dated 22nd September 2005 brought under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
Division and case type: COMMERCIAL DIVISIONCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI CIVIL SUIT NO 1421 OF 2000 BILSON STEPHEN MUTUKU ……………….…………………..……...PLAINTIFF VERSUS KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK…………………………..……...1ST DEFENDANT DILIGENT AUCTIONEERS LTD ………………..…………….....2ND DEFENDANT SAMMY GICHUKI WAIGWA ……………………...………..……3RD DEFENDANT R U L I N G The 3rd defendant’s chamber summons dated 14th May 2004 is brought under Order 16 Rule 5 (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules. The defendant seeks an order for the di
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
attractive to cite that UK law, we have our own EPR and they do not have a provision for a judge to order for any mode of service of a petition. Neither does section 20 of the Act.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO. 1424 OF 1997 BENROSE FAST FOOD………...……..…………………………………..PLAINTIFF -VERSUSMURANGA PROPERTIES LTD……....….…………………………..DEFENDANT RULING In this application which is by Chamber Summons the applicant is asking for the Orders prayed in the application.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO. 3257 OF 1978 ERIC PETER WANJAU .................................................PLAINTIFF AND GEORGE MUNDET ....................................................DEFENDANT R U L I N G On 26th of March, 1993 this court entered a judgment pursuant to an Award filed and read in court on 2nd December, 1992, in the presence of Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL SUIT 1293 OF 93 BARNABAS EMBUKHANE & 9 OTHERS.…………PLAINTIFF -VERSUSGENERAL PLASTICS LIMITED.…………………….DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS CIVIL SUIT NO. 1267 OF 1999 DISHON GOGO & 6 OTHERS .............................PLAINTIFF VERSUS BRIGADIER JOHN SEREM & 10 OTHERS ...................DEFENDANTS R U L I N G Before this Court is Amended Chamber Summons brought under Order XXI Rule 22.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS CIVIL SUIT NO. 2234 OF 1993 IDRIS KIBIRANGA ........................................................
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Constitution cannot be exercised by any other organ of the Government. Further, the Standing Orders made under section 56 of the Constitution have excluded any discussion, in Parliament, of any matter pending in a Court of law.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Constitution cannot be exercised by any other organ of the Government. Further, the Standing Orders made under section 56 of the Constitution have excluded any discussion, in Parliament, of any matter pending in a Court of law.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI ELECTION PETITION NO 11 OF 1998 IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY & PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT CAP.7 AND REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE GATANGA PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY BETWEEN SAMUEL KAMAU MACHARIA..............................................................PETITIONER AND THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA..........................1ST RESPONDENT NAPATHTALI CHOMBA...............................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
rule 5, make provision for the same remedy he did not think there was any conflict. The two orders merely provide different grounds for the remedy, he said.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
would have been done on October 24, 1990 a day after the hearing and making of garnishee order absolute. That notification would have served no purpose on that date for no fault of the Garnishee who was not served as provided by Rule 1 (2) of the said order.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
thereafter proceed to hearing de novo. This order has not been yet complied with and the consent order (which gives no time limit) is still there if the parties wish to give effect thereto.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO 2461 OF 1992 GITHUNGURI & ANOTHER T/A GITHUNGURI & COLLINS ARCHITECTS …….……..APPLICANT VERSUS KENYA RAILWAYS CORPORATION….…………… DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS Civil Suit 3512 of 1990 PRUDENTIAL FINANCE LIMITED........................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS JOHNSON NGANGA MBUGUA............................DEFENDANT