We use strictly necessary cookies to run the site. With your consent we also use performance cookies to understand how the site is used. Read the cookie policy.
Case law
Search court decisions
47,624 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 21 September 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, MWILU & ODEK, JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2015 BETWEEN ABDI YUSUF MAALIM …………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………………………..……… RESPONDENT (An appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, (Justice Muchemi) dated 19th December, 2013 in H.
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made can only apply to the court which made the order to set it aside.”. This court, in its more recent decision in the case of Michael Miana and K.
Court of Appeal at NairobiBosire,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 123 of 1992
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
distributed in accordance with the law of intestacy but instead of leaving it at that, he proceeded to order that the appellant and the respondents, as the only surviving persons beneficially entitled to the deceased's estate, should share the suit land in equal shares. This part of the Judge's order cannot be sustained.
Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,It,KonosiCase number Civil Appeal 166 of 1995
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 1995 AGIP (KENYA) LIMITED…………...................………….….APPELLANT AND APPOLLOS KENNEDY MWANGI t/a APPOLLOS SERVICE STATION…………………………………........…RESPONDENT (Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Rimita, J.) dated 31/10/1994 in H.C.C.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Gachuhi, Akiwumi & Lakha JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO 116 OF 1987 Between FRANCIS WAINAINA ....................................................APPELLANT AND KENYA COMMERCIAL FINANCE CO. LTD...............RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Lady Justice Aluoch) dated 25th day of February, 1987 in HCCC No 2539 of 1981) ********************* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appellant won a contract to supply Kenya Breweries with
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi, Omolo & Akiwumi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. KARIUKI ……………….................................…………….……………….APPELLANT AND HON.
When the application came before Aluoch J ex parte on 25th April 1994, she declined to grant the orders sought by the Mayor and directed that all the defendants be served as the matter was of some general public interest. She adjourned the application to 26th April 1994 for hearing inter partes.
Court of Appeal at NairobiEngland,JUDGE APPEALCase number Criminal Application 4 of 1994
Division and case type: Criminal·Case number Criminal Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Cockar, Omolo, Tunoi JJ A ) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NAI. 4 OF 1994 BETWEEN REPUBLIC.................................................................................APPLICANT AND 1.
There was no evidence of service of the order 2. Neither the order nor the notice of motion nor any other notice in connection therewith that was served carried an indorsement of penal obligation or consequence.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Apaloo CJ, Kwach, Cockar, Omolo & Tunoi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 145 OF 1990 TROUISTIK UNION INTERNATIONAL INGRID URSULA HEINZ …………………….….… APPELLANTS VERSUS JANE MBEYU ALICE MBEYU ………………………………..….. RESPONDENTS (Appeal from a Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Mr Justice Bosire) dated 17th October, 1989 in HCCC No 172 of 1987)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, PLATT & GACHUHI JJA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 18 OF 1987 OTIENO……………………………… APPLICANT VERSUS OUGO & ANOTHER….…………..RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution pending an appeal in the High Court at Nairobi, Bosire J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1987 VIRGINIA EDITH WAMBUI OTIENO..…….………APPLICANT VERSUS JOASH OUGO & ANOTHER………….…......…RESPONDENT RULING.
unreasonable to hold that the mere possession of the pistol on this date is sufficient to found a conclusion that the appellant participated in the robbery. Neither the trial magistrate nor the High Court pinpointed the evidence they considered cogent enough to justify the conclusion that the 1st appellant participated in the robbery.