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.
Court decisions & case law | Wakili Link
Case law
Search court decisions
2,481 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 2 June 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Appeal 860 of 2004 BLUESHIELD INSURANCE CO. LTD……...…APPELLANT VERSUS SAMUEL NYAGA NGURUKIRI…..…………..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T 1.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO.53 OF 1993 MAJOR JOSEPH MWETERI IGWETA.............................APPELLANT VERSUS 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...........................................................RESPONDENTS (Being an appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Shields) dated 25th October, 1990 in H.C.C.A.
Division and case type: Civil·Case number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 1997 (89/97UR) BETWEEN MARGARET WANJIKU MWATHI ................................
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 1993 BETWEEN CARTER & SONS LTD...................................................................APPELLANT AND 1.
Court of Appeal at NairobiGithinji,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 54 of 1994
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & PALL JJ.A) CIVIL APPEAL NO.54 OF 1994 BETWEEN GABRIEL NYANGATE.............................................APPELLANT AND KINENI FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMTED.......................................1ST RESPONDENT SAMWEL NYARUNDA................................2ND RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr Justice Githinji) dated 22nd May, 1992 MIS. NO.535 OF 1991) ********************
Court of Appeal at NairobiGithinji,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 35 of 1996
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, AKIWUMI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 1996 BETWEEN ELIJAH WAMBUGU MURIITHI……………..…………..…….APPELLANT AND MOSES MATHENGE MURIITHI) STEPHEN NDERITU MURIITHI)………………..………..….RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Githinji) dated 11th May, 1995 IN H.
Court of Appeal at NairobiShields,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 109 of 1995
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 109 OF 1995 BETWEEN KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD ...............................
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & AKIWUMI, JJ.A. NAI.70 OF 1996 BETWEEN MWANZI ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED…..……………..APPLICANT AND MAINA MUCHIRI GILBERT ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED……………..RESPONDENTS (Application for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 154 & 155 of 1996 JACKLINE MUENI NZIOKA…..…………………….................................... ……………...APPELLANT AND JETHAT RAMJI KERAI……………………................................……………………… RESPONDENT (Appeal from judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Lady Justice Ang’awa) dated 23rd May, 1996 IN H.C.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 NairobiShields,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 3 of 1992
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made, can apply to the Court which made the order to set it aside. The Court of Appeal in England in the case of Cozens v North Devon Hospital Management Committee [1966] 2 All ER 799, held that althought it was a general principle in regard to ex parte orders that the party affected by the order could apply for it to be discharged, yet it would be contrary to the intention of the Limitatio
Court for want of prosecution be set aside. The learned judge while setting aside the dismissal order declined an application for leave to appeal without assigning any reasons.
Court of Appeal at NairobiShieldsCase number Civil Appeal 143 of 1990
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
Mangi v Munyiri & another Court of Appeal, at Nairobi August 1, 1991 Masime, Cockar & Muli JJ A Civil Appeal No 143 of 1990 (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court at Nairobi, Mr Justice Shields J, dated 9th November 1989 in HCCC No 1413 of 1989) Equity - equitable remedies - specific performance - matters the courts will consider in granting such remedy. Land Law - sale of land - rescission of an agreement for sale on account of the purchaser failing to complete the transaction
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 4549 OF 1987 BACHITTER SINGH CHASE …………..………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS BARCLAYS BANK OF KENYA LTD…..……..
That evidence so far as it was adduced by the respondent fell foul of the requirements of rule 5 of Order 75: it failed to establish that the appellant was “the relevant “person”. The upshot of that is that the High Court did not have admiralty jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction.