Court decisions & case law

Judgment[1998] KEHC 11030 September 1998

Judgment[1998] KEHC 17930 September 1998

CONTINENTAL DEVELOPERS LTD v SAUTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

High Court at Nairobiit was fully paid on condition that out of theloan of shs,Gatonye,Mitambo,Ogano,Rachi,Rachi applicant Mr,Rachi Applicant,Kariuki,Kariuki Mr,Mitambo Defendant,Mitambo We,Gatonye says Co,Rachi proceed Mr,Gatonye They,Gatonye Give,Rachu,Rao,Gatonye last Friday,Rachi We,Rao If,Gatonye serve Mr,Rao absent Mr,Muruthi,Koyoko,MitiamboCivil Case 933 of 1996

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 933 of 1996 CONTINENTAL DEVELOPERS LTD............................................................. PLAINTIFF VERSUS SAUTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD................................

application succeedsAllowed2 min read

Judgment[1997] KECA 19620 October 1997

Machakos Ranching Company Limited v Joseph Kyalo Mutiso & another

Court of Appeal at NairobiOsiemo,JUDGE APPEAL,Joseph Kyalo Mutiso,Waema Itumo Muoka,Mwangangi,MasikaCivil Appeals numbered 96 of 1996

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeals numbered

& Pall JJ.A) on the 22nd day of May, 1997 as, in both the appeals, the date on the copy of the orders appealed against did not coincide with the date of the order and as the order appealed against appeared to have been certified on a date subsequent to the filing of the appeal. For record purposes the applicant in both applications before me is the same party, that is, Machakos Ranching Company Limited but the respondents are different.

4 min read

Judgment[1997] KECA 1925 May 1997

MACHAKOS DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED v PHILIP NZUKI KIILU

Court of Appeal at NairobiOsiemo,JUDGE APPEAL,Mwangangi,LakichaCivil Appeal No. 182 of 1994

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 182 OF 1994 MACHAKOS DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED……….........APPELLANT AND PHILIP NZUKI KIILU…………………....................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Honourable Mr.

1 min read

Judgment[1997] KECA 3156 March 1997

BONIFACE MUSYOKA NDOLO v PAULINE KATONGE MUSAU

Court of Appeal at NairobiOsiemo,JUDGE APPEAL,MusyokaCIVIL APPEAL NO. 34 OF 1996

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA, JJ.A & BOSIRE Ag. 34 OF 1996 BETWEEN BONIFACE MUSYOKA NDOLO..........................................APPELLANT AND PAULINE KATONGE MUSAU…………….........................SPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) delivered on 29th November, 1995 IN H.

appeal is allowedAllowed2 min read

Judgment[1997] KECA 476 March 1997

Boniface Musyoka Ndolo v Pauline Katonge Musau

Court of Appeal at NairobiOsiemo,JUDGE APPEAL,MusyokaCase number Civil Appeal 34 of 1996

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

appeal is allowedAllowed2 min read

Judgment[1996] KECA 515 December 1996

Mutemi Shadrack K. Ndegwa v Philip Munyao Ngumbi

Court of Appeal at NairobiOsiemo,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 5 of 1995

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, LAKHA JJ.A & BOSIRE AG. 5 of 1995 BETWEEN MR MUTEMI SHADRACK K.

1 min read

Judgment[1996] KEHC 3515 July 1996

KIVANDI MUKUSYA v MUTUNGA MATHEKA

High Court at MachakosOsiemo,Muendo,Nzei,Muendo applicant Mrs,Muthusi appeared Dr,Mutunga,MuthusiCase number Civil Appeal 18 of 1985

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 18 of 1985 KIVANDI MUKUSYA……………………………………………..........…….APPELLANT VERSUS MUTUNGA MATHEKA…………………..…………………......………..RESPONDENT (From Original Civil Appeal L. 115 of 1978 o Senior Resident Magistrate at Machakos) Coram: J.

suit dismissedDismissed7 min read

Judgment[1994] KECA 11721 April 1994

Moi v Matiba; Electoral Commission & another

Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,Inmadar,Inamdar,Matiba,Kariuki,Kariuki being Re WhitleyCivil Appeal 176 of 1993

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.

76 min read

Judgment[1993] KEHC 2020 September 1993

PRUDENTIAL FINANCE LIMITED v JOHNSON NGANGA MBUGUA

High Court at NairobiDugdale,Bunei,Kariuki,Mutua,Mbugua,WilsonKipkoti Managing Director,Kipkoti,Wilson Kipkoti,NgugiCase number Civil Suit 3512 of 1990

Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS Civil Suit 3512 of 1990 PRUDENTIAL FINANCE LIMITED........................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS JOHNSON NGANGA MBUGUA............................DEFENDANT

14 min read

Judgment[1990] KECA 2519 February 1990

MUNGA CONCRETE WORKS LTD v INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD

Court of Appeal at NairobiJudge specifically holds HCCC,JUDGE APPEAL,KariukiCivil Case No 3131 of 1988

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.

appeal is allowedAllowed6 min read

Judgment[1989] KECA 4816 November 1989

Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil

Court of Appeal at MombasaAct,Bosire,JUDGE APPEAL,Inamdar,Alexander,Satchu,Kariuki,Saliarelis,Tsakiris,PLSCivil Appeal 50 of 1989

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

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.

Appeal allowedAllowed77 min read