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
High Court at KisumuCase number Criminal Revision E268 of 2024
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Case
Agengo v Republic (Criminal Revision E268 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) (30 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION E268 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 30, 2024 BETWEEN DAVID MESIA AGENGO ........................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................
High Court at KisumuCase number Criminal Revision E267 of 2024
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Case
Agengo v Republic (Criminal Revision E268 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) (30 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION E268 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 30, 2024 BETWEEN DAVID MESIA AGENGO ........................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................
High Court at KisumuCase number Criminal Revision E258 of 2024
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Case
Otieno v Republic (Criminal Appeal 7 of 2012) [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) (30 December 2013) (Judgment) Marcella Nyabonyi Otieno v Republic [2013] eKLR Neutral citation: [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISII CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 OF 2012 EN MAINA & SO OKONG'O, JJ DECEMBER 30, 2013 BETWEEN MARCELLA NYABONYI OTIENO ...................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ........................................................................................
Division and case type: Environment and Land·Civil Appeal
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 ......................
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS 111, 112, 113, 114 & 115 OF 1993 ENOCK OTIENO OTIENO OTIENO JACERO JOSEPH ORWA OBONYO SAMSON NYAKWA ODEYO ZACHARY OPIYO MATEWA…....…….. APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………..
The intention as can be detected from the evidence was to beat the two boys in order to get them to produce the money. The next question is whether the intention to beat or chastise the deceased and Crispo so that they produce the stolen money was a common intention shared by all the four accused persons at the time they were beating the two boys.
High Court at Kisumuthe,magistrateCase number Criminal Revision 13 of 1991
Division and case type: Criminal·Miscellaneous 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
High Court at KisumuCase number Civil Case 80 of 1985
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO 80 OF 1985 JOHN HAYO OWUOR.....................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL & 2 OTHERS..........DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU crim apps 235,236,238 of 90 GARI & 2 OTHERS………..…………..PLAINTIFF V REPUBLIC……………………….………DEFENDANT ed) (From Original Conviction and Sentence of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kisumu (C.O. Ong’undi, Esq, P.M.) in Criminal Case No 189 of 1989) Evidence – secondary evidence – notice to produce a document – Evidence Act (cap 80) section 69 – to whom such notice is given – when such notice can be dispensed with – party who does not have po
High Court at KisumuCase number Civil Case 191 of 1985
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO 191 OF 1985 HARUN MIRUKA…………....….…..…. PLAINTIFF VERSUS JARED OTIENO ABOK TOBIAS OMONDI ABOK….…...........DEFENDANTS RULING The two applicants Jared Otieno Abok (1st defendant) and Tobias Omondi Abok (2nd defendant) ask me by their Chamber Summons dated 20th June, 1989 and filed in court on 30th June, 1989 for several orders, namely, that the judgment entered against them ex parte on the 16th February, 1988 be set aside, that ther
High Court at KisumuCourt,Udo UdomaCase number Criminal Appeal 34 of 1990
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
stated that the owner of the lorry to show cause why maize and lorry should not be forfeited, that order did not preclude the owner of the maize to appear if he was not the owner of the lorry, and claim his maize. The appellants aware of that order as it was made in their presence at the sitting in which the court had convicted them and during the continuation of the same proceedings as it is apparent from the Court record of the proceedings of that day.
Division and case type: Criminal·Miscellaneous 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