Judgment[1997] KEHC 24
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 249 of 1995 KHIMJI'S SECONDHAND MART....................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS TABURA SECURITY AGENCY (K).............................DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T On the 3rd of April, 1995 a plaint was filed in the MombasaHigh Court of Kenya District Registry. The Plaintiff wasdescribed as Kimji's Secondhand Mart - a business firm trading atMombasa.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO 853 OF 1995 M M …………………........……PLAINTIFF VERSUS D C J ……………………..1ST DEFENDANT V N K ……………………2ND DEFENDANT RULING M M, the Plaintiff herein, seeks an interlocutory injunction to restrain D C J, the 1st Defendant, from contracting a marriage under Marriage Act (Cap. 150) of the Africa Christian Marriage and Divorce Act (Cap.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO 235 OF 1995 KENINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD ……PLAINTIFF VERSUS BHAI O M AL-AMIN………………..…………..DEFENDANT RULING The Defendant seeks to set aside an ex-parte judgement entered against him in default of appearance. He does not deny that he was served with summons to enter appearance but failed to do so.
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
It does not appear to me that they stand to suffer any substantial loss if the orders sought in this application are not granted. I specifically dealt with this matter in my ruling.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
It does not appear to me that they stand to suffer any substantial loss if the orders sought in this application are not granted. I specifically dealt with this matter in my ruling.
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: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Gicheru, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET CIVIL SUIT NO. 23 OF 1992 D.M.AMAYAMU..............................................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS BENJAMIN K.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 299 of 1990 SILAS MIHESO ...................................................................................PLAINTIFF - Versus - MODERN BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED...........DEFENDANT J U D G M E NT In 1984 the plaintiff was employed by the Furniture CentreLtd. But in May he entered into negotiations withthe defendant's managing director..
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL SUIT NO. 375 OF 1992 RICHARD BOYWA GOR................................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS EAST AFRICAN SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.............................................DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 637 of 1990 BROWN M. MULATYA..........................................
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 361 OF 1994 SIMEL & OTHERS.........................................................................APPLICANTS VERSUS COUNTY COUNCIL OF NAROK & OTHERS...........................RESPONDENTS RULING The applicants have applied for leave to apply for judicial review to quash the decisions of the County Council of Narok affecting the applicants’ right to prohibit similar decisions being taken by it and to prohibi
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 AT ELDORET CIVIL SUIT NO 142 OF 1989 THOMAS NYAIBURU NYAKANGO ………….……. PLAINTIFF VERSUS DIAMOND TRUST OF KENYA LTD…………..… 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
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO 2604 OF 1988 DAVID MUOLA …………………………………….....…… PLAINTIFF VERSUS EAST AFRICAN PACKAGING LIMITED …….….........RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO 2552 OF 1987 JAMES MUTULU OKUNNE ………………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS NZOIA SUGAR COMPANY LTD & ANOTHER….............DEFENDANTS
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO 3086 OF 1989 ROBERT LETAPIN OLE KIDOTU...........................PLAINTIFF VERSUS STEPHEN MUIRURI...........................................RESPONDENT RULING The objector herein, Loise Njoki Murathi seeks release of a motor vehicle, KZZ 658 attached at the instance of the plaintiff herein, Mr Kidotu for a debt owed by the defendant Mr Muiruri who is the husband of the objector. The application is supported by an affidavit swo