Judgment
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
Any party to a reference aggrieved by any determination or order of a Tribunal made therein may, within thirty days after the date of such determination or order, appeal to the Environment and Land Court: Provided that the Environment and Land Court may, where it is satised that there is sucient reason for so doing, extend the said period of thirty days upon such conditions, if any, as it may think t. (2) In hearing appeals under subsection (1) of this section the Court shall have all the pow
Division and case type: ELRCMiscellaneous Application
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: Environment and LandPetition
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: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
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: Environment and LandPetition
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: Environment and LandMiscellaneous Application
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: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
I therefore find that the application for revision dated 29th July, 2020 is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The exparte orders granted on 30th July, 2020 staying the lower court proceedings are automatically vacated by the dismissal of the application.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
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: 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 RIGHTS DIVISIONPetition
For the reasons set out above, the proposed Interested Party’s application by Notice of Motion dated 3rd October 2016 is granted as prayed, and the Petition shall be amended to join the three named officials of the Association as Interested Parties suing on behalf of the Rangers Court Welfare Association. The Interim Order is extended until hearing of the petition or until further orders of the Court.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION COURT MARTIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL 5 Of 2016. 87058 SPTE ALLAN OMONDI ANYANGA................APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT.
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionPetition
Order Ruling duly read ISAAC LENAOLA JUDGE By Consent Application dated 12th August 2015 is granted as prayed but Senator Johnstone Muthama is enjoined as an Interested Party and shall file Submissions within 7 days on matters affecting him only. Submissions to be highlighted on 12th January 2016.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
Moses Kiprotich Rutto & Others v Telkom Kenya Limited (Cause 139 (N) of 2009) [2014] KEIC 9 (KLR) (Employment and Labour) (22 December 2014) (Ruling) Moses Kiprotich Rutto & Others v Telkom Kenya Limited [2014] eKLR Neutral citation: [2014] KEIC 9 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR CAUSE 139 (N) OF 2009 NZIOKI WA MAKAU, J DECEMBER 22, 2014 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR CAUSE 139 (N) OF 2009 NZIOKI WA MAKAU
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
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: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
In light of what I have stated, I hereby make the following orders; a) The petitioner shall continue to be held in Lang’ata Women’s Prison or such other place as may be designated by the Minister in terms of section 43(2)(b) of the Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 pending her removal from Kenya or pending such time as any claim lodged by her, within 30 days from the date hereof, is determined by a competent authority under relevant legislation. b) The Prison authorities shall ensure tha
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
Divorce: if consent to marry is obtained by fraud, trick, duress or force, the marriage is void. The test to be applied is whether there is real consent as defined at pg6 of this judgment.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MATRIMONIAL CAUSE NO. 14 OF 2008 C.A.M……………………………......................…PLAINTIFF -VERSUSW.T.C…………………………..………………....DEFENDANT RULING C.M.A (the petitioner) has filed this cause against W.T.C (the respondent) in which she petitions for the dissolution of the marriage between her and the respondent.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
Gikandi argues that he is able to show that it is jurisdictionally possible for conservatory orders to be granted despite the envisaged time-lines in Section 32 of the Act.This is the very subject of his application. In view of the restricted time in Section 32, the application by the Petitioners is made even more urgent.Once more urgent a person alleges contravention of his fundamental rights and freedoms under Section 70 – 83 of the Constitution this court as a Constitutional court must stop i