Judgment[2023] KEHC 27253
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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: CivilCivil Appeal
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: 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: 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: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Mombasa Constitutional Petition 59 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION BY ABDULLAH MANGI MOHAMED CHALLENGING INFRINGEMENT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE ISSUE, EXISTENCE AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF TITLE DEED HELD BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10TH JANUARY 2006 OVER PLOT NO. 539 SECTION III MAINLAND NORTH BETWEEN ABDULLAH M
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO. LOWE & COMPANY LIMITED …………………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ …………………………1ST DEFENDANT BANK OF AFRICA KENYA LIMITED …………...…….….2ND DEFENDANT REGISTRAR OF TITLES, MOMBASA …………….…….3RD DEFENDANT RULING AND/OR DIRECTIONS A fundamental issue has arisen in respect of the application dated 30.10.2010 by the 1st Defendant and which all parties agree will have crucial consequences or ramifications depe
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: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal (Appli) 164 of 2005 ABDULSHAKOOR KHANDWALLA…………APPLICANT/RESPONDENT AND EAST AFRICAN BUILDING SOCIETY……..RESPONDENT/APPELLANT (Application to strike out record of appeal in an appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Maraga J) dated 11th June, 2004 in H.C.C.C. 30 OF 1994) ******************** RULING OF THE COURT This is an application under Rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules (Rules) for
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 59 of 2006 JACKSON NZARO……………………………………………………….APPELLANT VERSUS KAVITA BHATT……………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T This is an appeal against the decision of the Principal Magistrate given on the 30th March 2006 allowing the Respondent’s applications dated 17th March 2006 and 15th March 2006 in Mombasa CMCC Numbers 817 of 2006 and 993 of 2006 respectively which had been consolidated.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 251 of 2005 ERNEST MWALUA LOMBO ............................................................... APPELLANT - Versus - REPUBLIC ......................................................….................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 237 of 1999 ABDALLA A. BAJABER….………………….………………….………PLAINTIFFS VERSUS CHEPKWE HOLDINGS LTD & ENOCK TUITOK .…………………………………………………….DEFENDANTS R U L I N G This is an application brought by the defendants under Order 9B Rule 8, Order 21 Rules 22, 25 and 54 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relationsmiscellaneous cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA MISC. APPLICATION NO.527.04 IN THE MATTER OF: EXHUMATION OF THE BODY OF ANNA NAFULA UWE AND PIUS WEYUSIA WAMALABE ……………………………………… APPLICANT VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ……………………………….……..
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE FRANCIS AGANDA ………………………………………………APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………RESPONDENT Consolidated With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2001 STEPHEN MALIOLO ……………………………………………..APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 73 OF 2002 DIETRICH BOELLING ….…….……………..
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPPEAL 52 OF 2003 GEORGE OMONDI .……….…………………………..……APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC ....….…………………………………...….... RESPONDENT J U D G M E NT George Omondi, the appellant, was convicted for Shop Breaking and committing a felony contrary to Section 306(a) Penal Code.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE NO 476 OF 2003 REPUBLIC ……………………….………...... APPLICANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ………….
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Appeal went to great lengths to examine the relevant authorities and I totally agree with their conclusion on that issue. However in this case in considering the legal effect of the Act and the rules and particularly sections 14 (1) (a) and 14 (2) the provisions of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (cap 2) set out namely section 24 and section 33 were not considered.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 74 of 2002 BEATRICE AGOLA OPONDO………...........................................…………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS SWALEH SALIM SAID………….....................................…………………………..DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 138 of 2002 ABDIRAHMAN ALI ABDI …………………….................…………………….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ……………………………….............……….………………….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 95 OF 2003 ALII MARO HERO ………………………………………….