Judgment[1996] KECA 68
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil 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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
prospective petitioner is to strictly adhere to and observe the rules prescribed in the procedure in order to be able to enjoy the rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution. So if the petitioner has failed to meet any obligation which happens to be of a mandatory nature then it will equally defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the Act if the breach of the mandatory obligation is viewed with a blind eye.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Gicheru & Kwach JJ A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 54 OF 1989 ODHIAMBO OLEL …………….……. APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL 18 OF 89 Munga Concrete Works Ltd.......................appellant v Industrial Development Bank Ltd..............respondent Judgment. The background facts giving rise to this appeal can be stated briefly.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller, Nyarangi, JJ A and Gachuhi, Ag J A) CIVIL APPEAL 5 OF 1984 BETWEEN BAKSHISH SINGH & BROTHERS ………….………...............…………….. APPELLANTS AND PANAFRIC HOTELS LIMITED ………..…………….....................…………..
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller Hancox JJ A and Chesoni Ag J A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 37 OF 1984 BETWEEN GILBERT CHEGE ………………………………….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ………………………………………….
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Parliament until 1979, when he lost his seat; who would pay them Kshs 36,000 for carrying out that order which was described as ‘the work’. If the prosecution case was accepted there could be no question but that Charles and the second appellant were to be armed with guns when they went to arrest Tenai.