Judgment[2023] KEHC 27253
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsJudicial Review
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsJudicial Review
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEALS BOARD AT NAIVASHA APPEAL CASE NO 16 OF 2020 EXPRESS PRESTIGE SHUTTLE LTD................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT & SAFETY AUTHORITY..........RESPONDENT RULING
Division and case type: COMMERCIAL DIVISIONJudicial Review
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KOOME, OKWENGU & KANTAI, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2014 BETWEEN AGGREY CHITERI…………………….........................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC OF KENYA……....…..…………………..…RESPONDENT (An appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Majanja J.), dated 30th May, 2014 in High Court Petition No.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI ELECTION PETITION NO 8 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE MEMBER OF SENATE OF LAMU AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION ACT, 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION (PARLIAMENTARY AND COUNTY ELECTION) PETITION RULES, 2017. BETWEEN ALBEITY HASSAN ABDALLA.......................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE INDEPENTEDENT ELECTROAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (I.E.B.C)...............................................
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI ELECTION PETITION NO 8 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE MEMBER OF SENATE OF LAMU AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION ACT, 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION (PARLIAMENTARY AND COUNTY ELECTION) PETITION RULES, 2017. BETWEEN ALBEITY HASSAN ABDALLA.......................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE INDEPENTEDENT ELECTROAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (I.E.B.C)...............................................
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: Constitutional and Human RightsJudicial Review
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA OF KISII Miscellaneous Civil Application 5 of 2008 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY EBEL ODAGO ONYANGO FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION) AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL ACT NO. 18 OF 1990 AND IN THE MATTER OF RONGO LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNALS AND IN THE MATTER OF RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT RONGO BETWEEN ABEL ODAGO ONYANGO ………………………..
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Appeal went to great lengths to examine the relevant authorities and I totally agree with their conclusion on that issue. However in this case in considering the legal effect of the Act and the rules and particularly sections 14 (1) (a) and 14 (2) the provisions of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (cap 2) set out namely section 24 and section 33 were not considered.
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: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA Election Petition 3 of 1998 THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT (CAP.7) AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE SHINYALU PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY BETWEEN JAPHETH GALAGATI SHAMALLA............................................ THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA...............RESPONDENTS RULING JAPHETH GALAGATI SHAMALLA (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner) fil
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: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
By his notice of motion dated 17.2.93 which was later withdrawn the petitioner sought this Court’s orders to keep the ballot papers, boxes registers etc at a safe place until the hearing of the petition. But as noted above the motion was withdrawn on 22.3.9 when a notice of motion by the 2nd respondent, also dated 17.2.93 came up for hearing.