Judgment[2025] KEELC 18471
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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: CriminalCriminal Case
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
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
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA DIVORCE CAUSE NO.9 “A” OF 1996 A M ………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF - versus – Y J M …………………………………………… DEFENDANT J U D G E M E N T The Petitioner A M is a Swiss national who on 31-1-92 married the Respondent a Kenyan citizen in Switzerland. Immediately after their marriage the two came to Kenya and cohabited together at Diani in South Coast of Mombasa.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
I make no finding on theactions of Sebastian as his case abated upon his death pendingconclusion of the trial. The case against Mwakalamu KISHUSHU has not been proved beyondreasonable doubt and I find him not guilty.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
I make no finding on theactions of Sebastian as his case abated upon his death pendingconclusion of the trial. The case against Mwakalamu KISHUSHU has not been proved beyondreasonable doubt and I find him not guilty.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Case 49 of 1995 REPUBLIC…………………....………..………………..PROSECUTOR VERSUS CHARO NZAI KATANA..........................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL CASE NO 638 OF 1992 ABEDINEGO MUTISO MUSYOKI …………..APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………..............……RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL (REVISION) CASE NO 25 OF 1990 REPUBLIC…………….………APPLICANT VERSUS MOHAMED…..……………..RESPONDENT (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No 496 of 1990 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa, G M Njuguna, Esq, RM) RULING A witness by the name S Pandya was summoned to appear before Resident Magistrate in the above Criminal Case on 14/8/90 to give evidence. According to the record of the court; the witness did not appear