Judgment[2023] KEHC 26677
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
Republic of Kenya High Court, at Nairobi (Appellate Side) Criminal Appeal No 997 of 1984 Chege v Republic (Appeal from the District Magistrate’s Court at Kandara, L T Macua Esq, Criminal Case No 825 of 1983) Advocates Appellant present and unrepresented W Ngugi (Miss) (State Counsel) for respondent October 22, 1985, Mbaya J delivered the following Judgment. The appellant was convicted of creating disturbance in a manner likely to cause a breach of peace contrary to section 95(1) of the Penal
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: KNELLER, HANCOX & NYARANGI JJA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 177 OF 1984 BETWEEN KARIUKI & ANOTHER .................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC......................................
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
is between one to ten and one to twelve. It is not difficult to arrange well-conducted parades.
Division and case type: CRIMINAL DIVISIONMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Waweru v Republic High Court, at Nairobi August 14, 1985 Schofield J Criminal Appeal No 1723, 1724 & 1725 of 1984 (Appeal from the Resident’s Magistrate’ Court at Nairobi, J A Mango, Esq) Advocates Appellants absent, unrepresented, and not wishing to be present Miss W Ngugi, for respondent August 14, 1985, Schofield J delivered the following Judgment. Jackson Waweru (1st appellant), Francis Njoroge (2nd appellant) and Nelson Mwaniki (3rd appellant) were three of four accused
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.567 OF 2003 FELIX MACHARIA MAGAWA........................................APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC..............................................................RESPONDENT RULING The applicant herein has applied to this Court for:- 1. Consolidation of Criminal Case No.1030 of 2003, Criminal Case No.1386 of 2003 and Criminal Case No.1387 of 2003, all preferred against him in Nairobi Chief Magistrate’s
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
accused persons for trial his Court had become functus officio and could not make any further order thereon. While hearing this constitutional issue, it was submitted before us that after the magistrate committed the accused persons for trial to the High Court counsel tried to draw the learned Chief Magistrate’s attention to the irregularities committed, namely non-compliance with provisions of sections 231 up to 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but to no avail due to the hostile attitude hel
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION NO 13 OF 1991 JOHN OPIYO ARUNGA..........................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC...........................................RESPONDENT REVISION This is an application for a revision under sections 362, 364, 365 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application has been filed by M/s Gumba Onywera & Company Advocates for the applicant John Opiyo Arunga and it arises out of a Miscellaneous Criminal Application No 12 of
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 9 OF 1990 JONATHAN MUNGAI WAINAINA ……………………..APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………..……………..........……….RESPONDENT RULING The applicant Jonathan Mungai Wainaina applies to me by chamber summons under section 123(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for bail pending his trial. He is charged with various offences in the Court of the Resident Magistrate at Kisumu and those offences would appear to arise from the circumsta
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionMiscellaneous Criminal Application
tends as a direction to the Court hearing the application for Order of Prohibition to grant the Order without using its own discretion whether it should do so. The Attorney-General did not need any authority, nor a reminder, that in the light of the opinions expressed by the Constitutional Court he could terminate the proceedings even when coupled with a wet hope that he would do so.