Judgment[2025] KEHC 19055
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Abdirahman & another v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT GARISSA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E012 OF 2025 MN GICHERU, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010; IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10(1) & (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 47, 50(1), 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68,
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Abdullah & another v Chari & another (Civil Case E007 of 2021) [2024] KEHC 16144 (KLR) (20 December 2024) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16144 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYERI CIVIL CASE E007 OF 2021 MA ODERO, J DECEMBER 20, 2024 BETWEEN HAWO SHANKO ABDULLAH .......................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF ZAMZAM GOBE GARO .....................................................................
Division and case type: Environment and LandCivil Appeal
Ogolla v Onyango Otunga & Company Advocates (Civil Appeal E101 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) (27 December 2023) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL E101 OF 2023 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 27, 2023 BETWEEN GEORGE OGOLLA .................................................................................. APPELLANT AND ONYANGO OTUNGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES ......................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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: CivilCivil Case
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
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: CivilCivil Appeal
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: CivilCivil Appeal
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: CivilCivil Appeal
that the wires were naked before he rented the premises and that the child had to be standing in order to touch the wires. The Respondent did not call any witness and the medical reports were produced by consent of both parties.
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: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CORAM: D. 54 OF 2018 BETWEEN ADERO OJANO ………………..……………………………….
Division and case type: CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISIONCivil Appeal
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: 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: CivilCivil Appeal
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 Appeal
We have taken into account the weighty submissions made for the respondents, regarding the essential principle of compliance with Orders issuing from a Court of law, just as we have closely adverted to the applicants’ case for a proper interpretation of the constitutional status of County Assembly privileges, operating within the scheme of the separationofpowers doctrine. As it is clear to us that the respondents’ case rests on fundamental constitutional questions not yet interpreted, and which
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
which was advanced to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The principal prayer therein was an order directing the Defendant to register a discharge of charge at the lands office in favour of the Plaintiff and to forthwith release the original title document over Nairobi/Block III/601 – Komarock to the Plaintiff.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU CIVIL CASE NO. 82 OF 2012 (FORMERLY NYERI HCCC 308/1997) FREDRICK MUKUA NJIGORU……............…..........1ST PLAINTIFF KUDGETA WAMUGO NJIGORU................................2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS LIQUIDATOR KENYA NATIONAL ASSUARANCE BANK LTD.......1ST DEFENDANT KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.....
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL CASE NO.167 OF 2008 IN THE MATTER OF REGISTRATION OF LANDS ACT CAP 300 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF PLOT NO.20 MEASURING 40 ACRES IN LAND REFERENCE NO.548 KERINGET ESTATE, MOLO, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS LAND TITLE NO. OLENGUGUONE/KERINGET BLOCK 1/20 BETWEEN AARON KIPLAGAT KAMOING………………..........................………PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT AND MAJOR WILSON KOITABA……………........................…………..1ST DEFENDANT/APPLICANT JOEL KIBET K
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL APPEAL NO.215 OF 2009 ANALIK WEKESA…………………………………….……….……....1ST APPELLANT DIOCESE OF LODWAR (Thro’ its Registered Trustees...........….........2ND APPELLANT VERSUS HELLEN WAIRIMU MWANGI & SIMON NJOROGE MWANGI (Suing as the Administrators of the estate ofJAMES KANENE MWANGI (Deceased)….................……....RESPONDENT RULING The Memorandum of appeal was filed on 21st October, 2009 simultaneously with application for stay of execution. The stay was gran
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
(d) It is just in the circumstances of this case and in the interests of justice that the restraining orders be granted. Opposing the application, the 1st Defendant filed grounds of opposition on 9th July, 2010 which were supplemented by the 1st Defendant’s replying affidavit sworn by Jon Waïn, the 1st Defendant’s Legal Counsel on 15th July, 2010.