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 Mombasaenshrined Article,JudgeCase number Judicial Review Application E022 of 2023
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Judicial 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.
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.
High Court at MalindiCase number Miscellaneous Civil Application E13 of 2020
Division and case type: Civil·Miscellaneous Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MISC. E13 OF 2020 ATLANTIS KENYA LIMITED......APPLICANT VERSUS CHEBUSWA LIMITED...............RESPONDENT Coram: Hon.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Constitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI CONST. 20 OF 2018 ATHUMANI SHUSHE BAHOLA...........................................PETITIONER VERSUS REPUBLIC..............................................................................RESPONDENT CORAM: Hon.
High Court at MombasaCase number Civil Suit 25 of 2015
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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 Rights·Constitutional Petition
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 Rights·Petition
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 Rights·Election Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI ELECTION PETITION NO 8 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE MEMBER OF SENATE OF LAMU AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION ACT, 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION (PARLIAMENTARY AND COUNTY ELECTION) PETITION RULES, 2017. BETWEEN ALBEITY HASSAN ABDALLA.......................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE INDEPENTEDENT ELECTROAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (I.E.B.C)...............................................
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Election Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI ELECTION PETITION NO 8 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE MEMBER OF SENATE OF LAMU AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION ACT, 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION (PARLIAMENTARY AND COUNTY ELECTION) PETITION RULES, 2017. BETWEEN ALBEITY HASSAN ABDALLA.......................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE INDEPENTEDENT ELECTROAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (I.E.B.C)...............................................
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 47 OF 2011 In the matter of the Estate of MZEE OMARI (Deceased) ABDALLA MUTEMBEI GISAGA.................................APPLICANT VERSUS PAMELA GACHERI PATRISIO.........................1ST RESPONDENT CRISUS MICHENI NDEKE (MWALIMU)..........2ND RESPONDENT NYAGA ISMAEL (SMATEX)............................3RD RESPONDENT JOSEPH MURITHI (MUEMBU).......................4TH RESPONDENT NJAGI NTIBA (CHIBU)...........................
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Constitutional 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
High Court at MombasaCase number Civil Case 235 of 2010
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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 Rights·Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MATRIMONIAL CAUSE NO. 14 OF 2008 C.A.M……………………………......................…PLAINTIFF -VERSUSW.T.C…………………………..………………....DEFENDANT RULING C.M.A (the petitioner) has filed this cause against W.T.C (the respondent) in which she petitions for the dissolution of the marriage between her and the respondent.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
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
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
High Court at MombasaSergon,Mwangi,NdegwaCase number Civil Appeal 59 of 2006
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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.
High Court at MombasaCase number Civil Suit 237 of 1999
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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.
High Court at Mombasajudge bench High CourtCase number Miscellaneous Civil Case 476 of 2003
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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 Rights·Election 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.