Judgment[2024] KEHC 16144
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Abdullah & another v Chari & another (Civil Case E007 of 2021) [2024] KEHC 16144 (KLR) (20 December 2024) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16144 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYERI CIVIL CASE E007 OF 2021 MA ODERO, J DECEMBER 20, 2024 BETWEEN HAWO SHANKO ABDULLAH .......................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF ZAMZAM GOBE GARO .....................................................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
We have taken into account the weighty submissions made for the respondents, regarding the essential principle of compliance with Orders issuing from a Court of law, just as we have closely adverted to the applicants’ case for a proper interpretation of the constitutional status of County Assembly privileges, operating within the scheme of the separationofpowers doctrine. As it is clear to us that the respondents’ case rests on fundamental constitutional questions not yet interpreted, and which
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU CIVIL CASE NO. 82 OF 2012 (FORMERLY NYERI HCCC 308/1997) FREDRICK MUKUA NJIGORU……............…..........1ST PLAINTIFF KUDGETA WAMUGO NJIGORU................................2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS LIQUIDATOR KENYA NATIONAL ASSUARANCE BANK LTD.......1ST DEFENDANT KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.....
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL APPEAL NO.215 OF 2009 ANALIK WEKESA…………………………………….……….……....1ST APPELLANT DIOCESE OF LODWAR (Thro’ its Registered Trustees...........….........2ND APPELLANT VERSUS HELLEN WAIRIMU MWANGI & SIMON NJOROGE MWANGI (Suing as the Administrators of the estate ofJAMES KANENE MWANGI (Deceased)….................……....RESPONDENT RULING The Memorandum of appeal was filed on 21st October, 2009 simultaneously with application for stay of execution. The stay was gran
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MATRIMONIAL CAUSE NO. 14 OF 2008 C.A.M……………………………......................…PLAINTIFF -VERSUSW.T.C…………………………..………………....DEFENDANT RULING C.M.A (the petitioner) has filed this cause against W.T.C (the respondent) in which she petitions for the dissolution of the marriage between her and the respondent.
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 NAKURU Civil Appeal 30 of 1997 [Being an appeal from the Judgment of Honourable Japhet Mahasi – R.M in Resident Magistrate’s Court - Kabarnet, Land/Civil case Nos. 1 & 2 of 1992 dated the 24th March 1997] DANIEL KIPKEMEI CHEROGONY ...…...………….…...
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Civil Suit 125 of 2004 ABDI YASIN KOIKAI…………...………………………….........…..………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS OLE NAKUYAKI SAMSON & 11 OTHERS ………….....…………..….DEFENDANTS RULING The 1st to 10th defendants raised a preliminary objection to the Plaintiff’s suit on the grounds that the suit was misconceived, incompetent and bad in law as it contravened the provisions of Section 28 of the Land (Group Representatives) Act Cap 287. They also said that it contravened
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI MISC. 55 OF 2003 ALEXANDER MAIGWA MWANGI……………………….APPLICANT VERSUS ANNE WAMUCII MUHIHI………………………..…..RESPONDENT R U L I N G The applicant has come to this court under Section 79 G of the Civil Procedure Act seeking leave of this court to file his intended appeal against the judgment delivered on 20th November 2002 in Nyeri CMCC No.360 of 2001.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLICOF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU CIVIL CASE NO. 89 OF 2000 FLORENCE WAMBUI MWANGI ……………………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS MICHAEL WARUI GITHINJI ………………………………DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T Florence Wambui Mwangi brought this suit in her capacity as the Administratrix of the Estate of her late sister Jane Nyambura Mwangi seeking general and special damages under the Fatal Accidents Act and the Law Reform Act against Michael Warui Githinji and James Macharia (hereinafter referred to as 1st & 2
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL CASE NO. 104 OF 1999 STEPHEN NJOROGE KIBOI………..…………………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS DANIEL NGULI KYALO……………………………….1ST DEFENDANT MASAI ITUMO…………………………………………2ND DEFENDANT RULING The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants on 12th March, 1999.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPULIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL SUIT NO. 384 OF 2000 ESTHER WANJIRU KIARIE …………………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS JOSEPH KIARIE NG’ANG’A ………………………………..DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU (CORAM: OMOLO, TUNOI & O’KUBASU JJ A ) CIVIL APPLICATION NO 51 OF 2001 BETWEEN ABRAHAM TENOI KIMALA................................APPLICANT AND JOB KIPSANG SUTER ......................................RESPONDENT RULING OF THE COURT This is a reference from the ruling of a learned single judge of this Court delivered on 25th September, 2001, whereby, in exercise of his powers under rule 4 of our rules, he refused to grant the applicant extension of time within
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
decisions of the Board are to be recorded; Section 17 deals with the power of the Board to order attendance and Section 9 thereof gives the Board mandatory considerations for the granting or refusal of consent. A District Commissioner or designated person cannot purport to sit alone to approve an application for consent under the Act.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Civil Suit 447 of 1996 HILLARY MUNUHE GACHINGA......................................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS NORWEGIAN PEOPLE'S AID..................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA PEAL AT NYERI Civil Appeal 251 of 1996 1. JOSEPHAT MWANGI…………….................................……………………….APPELLANTS AND RUTH W.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NYERI Civil Appeal 141 of 1996 IBRAHIM MULU M’INYINGI…………….……APPELLANT AND PETER M’ITABATHI……………...………….RESPONDENT (Appeal from a decree of the High Court of Kenya a MERU (Justice Ong’udi C.O) dated 19th October, 1995 IN H.C.C.A. 15 OF 1995) ***********************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NYERI Civil Appeal 216 of 1995 JULIUS KITHINJI NKANATA.........................................................1ST APPELLANT GERALD GIKUNDA NKANATA......................................................2ND APPELLANT AND M’NKANATA M’MUTUNGI...................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Order/ Ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Mr. Kuloba) dated 10th November, 1993 IN H.C.C.C.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAKURU Civil Appeal 66 or 1995 CLEMENT J. MACHARIA …………………….....................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
The respondents swear that they were prepared to accept the applicants papers if they were in order despite the order from the Chief Magistrate, Nakuru if the same were presented within the prescribed time. No attempt was made to present the papers within the prescribed time.