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
2,883 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 COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 36 OF 2008 ADBULHAKIM MOHAMED HASSAN HUSSEIN..............APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Ombija, J.) dated 26th March, 2008 in H.C.Cr. 196 of 2003) ***************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Abdulhakim Mohamed Hassan Hussein, the appellant herein was arraigned in the superior c
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.
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.
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)
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.
Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,HeCase number Civil Appeal 38 of 1986
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
power to make nor was there any appeal from the order for possession for reconstruction. The time to consider whether there was to be a true reconstruction was when the Tribunal made its order of February 9, 1976.
High Court at NairobiHeCase number Civil Case 1271 of 1979
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE No. 1271 OF 1979 SYAN..................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS SUNSET HOTEL LTD...................................RESPONDENT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1987 VIRGINIA EDITH WAMBUI OTIENO..…….………APPLICANT VERSUS JOASH OUGO & ANOTHER………….…......…RESPONDENT RULING.
High Court at MombasaHis,AllCase number Civil Case 1034 of 1983
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
Ngeyma v Akamba Public Service High Court, at Mombasa February 8, 1985 Mandari J Civil Case No 1034 of 1983 Cases Benham Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] 64 TLR 177 Firozali Noormchmed Haji v Elias Kapomba Toka C A 46/80 (unreported) Reckless V P C Allday & Co Ltd & another, 9 – 018. Advocates Anjarwalla for plaintiff Juma for defendants February 8, 1985, Mandari J delivered the following Judgment.
High Court at MombasaHis,AllCivil Case No 1034 of 1983
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
Ngeyma v Akamba Public Service High Court, at Mombasa February 8, 1985 Mandari J Civil Case No 1034 of 1983 Cases Benham Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] 64 TLR 177 Firozali Noormchmed Haji v Elias Kapomba Toka C A 46/80 (unreported) Reckless V P C Allday & Co Ltd & another, 9 – 018. Advocates Anjarwalla for plaintiff Juma for defendants February 8, 1985, Mandari J delivered the following Judgment.
and Mr Jayantilal Shah of that firm took over his defence. He applied on October 11, 1982 for an order that his firm should cease to act for the defendant because it could get no further instructions in the suit from the defendant which the defendant said he had not alternative but to accept and it was all right if the firm did not wish to represent him.
What, today, is the correct approach of a court to an application for summary judgment under order XXXV rule 1 where there is a claim on a note and the defence is a set-off or counterclaim? Should the payment due on it be held up until the trial of the set-off or counterclaim has been heard?