Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI Civil Case 29 of 2007 FRIDAH NYAGUTHII MUNENE…………......…….PLAINTIFF Versus PETER MURIITHI KINGAU....…………........1ST DEFENDANT BERNARD KARERU KAROKI…………..….2ND DEFENDANT PHYLIS WANJIRA KANGANGI……….……3RD DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T This is a suit instituted by way of an amended plaint dated 23rd May, 2007 and filed in court on the same day through Messrs Rika & Co. In that amended plaint, Frida Nyaguthii Munene, hereinafter referred
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil 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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE No. 1271 OF 1979 SYAN..................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS SUNSET HOTEL LTD...................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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?