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[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[1993] KEHC 13829 August 1993

Mathigu v Mwaura

High Court at Mombasathe,attached goodsCase number Civil Case 823 of 1991

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 823 OF 1991 MATHIGU………...…… APPLICANT VERSUS MWAURA……..…………. DEBTOR RULING This is an application by the objector to the attachment of motor vehicle KXK 245 in execution of the decree in this suit.

3 min read

Judgment[1992] KEHC 16418 May 1992

Gabriel Ndungu Kinuthia v George W Waweru

High Court at Eldoretthe,defence was filed in the case an out of Court settlement had been reached between the plaintiffCase number Civil Case 61 of 1991

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET CIVIL CASE NO 61 OF 1991 GABRIEL NDUNGU KINUTHIA.........................APPLICANT VERSUS GEORGE W WAWERU................................RESPONDENT RULING On 27th December 1991, the plaintiff/applicant filed a suit against the defendant/respondent and claimed from him both general and special damages arising out of an accident which occurred on 16th June 1989 along Nyeri-Nyahururu Road in which the plaintiff/applicant sustained severe injur

3 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