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: FamilySuccession Cause
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: FamilySuccession Cause
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 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: 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: FamilySuccession Cause
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: 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: FamilySuccession Cause
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.
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 79 OF 2007 ANNE KENDI MBAYA............................................................................................PETITIONER VERSUS JONATHAN M’NKANATA M’MUGWIKA............................................................OBJECTOR R U L I N G This is an application by petitioner Anne Kendi Mbaya brought under Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules.
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
When the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsels appearing in the matter recorded a consent order to have the appeal disposed of by written submissions. In my view this appeal will be determined by a single point of law without considering the merits of the case.
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 616 of 2009 DR. MAINA MWEA T/A SPAX PUB & RESTAURANT ......................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS GEORGE KIMANI NJUKI ………………..…………… ………...1ST DEFENDANT GEPRGE WAINAINA REBO…………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 36 OF 2008 ADBULHAKIM MOHAMED HASSAN HUSSEIN..............APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Ombija, J.) dated 26th March, 2008 in H.C.Cr. 196 of 2003) ***************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Abdulhakim Mohamed Hassan Hussein, the appellant herein was arraigned in the superior c
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: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 2772 of 1997 ALLAN S. REYNOLDS .................................................PLAINTIFF V E R S U S TWIGA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD...............DEFENDANT R U L I N G On 3rd October, 2008 the court (Waweru, J) conditionally allowed an application herein for stay of execution of decree pending appeal.
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