Judgment[2025] KEHC 19177
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
Any party to a reference aggrieved by any determination or order of a Tribunal made therein may, within thirty days after the date of such determination or order, appeal to the Environment and Land Court: Provided that the Environment and Land Court may, where it is satised that there is sucient reason for so doing, extend the said period of thirty days upon such conditions, if any, as it may think t. (2) In hearing appeals under subsection (1) of this section the Court shall have all the pow
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Abdirahman & another v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT GARISSA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E012 OF 2025 MN GICHERU, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010; IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10(1) & (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 47, 50(1), 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68,
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: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
Ogolla v Onyango Otunga & Company Advocates (Civil Appeal E101 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) (27 December 2023) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL E101 OF 2023 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 27, 2023 BETWEEN GEORGE OGOLLA .................................................................................. APPELLANT AND ONYANGO OTUNGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES ......................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsJudicial Review
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
that the wires were naked before he rented the premises and that the child had to be standing in order to touch the wires. The Respondent did not call any witness and the medical reports were produced by consent of both parties.
Division and case type: Commercial and TaxCase number Winding Up Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsJudicial Review
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEALS BOARD AT NAIVASHA APPEAL CASE NO 16 OF 2020 EXPRESS PRESTIGE SHUTTLE LTD................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT & SAFETY AUTHORITY..........RESPONDENT RULING
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MISC. E13 OF 2020 ATLANTIS KENYA LIMITED......APPLICANT VERSUS CHEBUSWA LIMITED...............RESPONDENT Coram: Hon.
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MISC. E13 OF 2020 ATLANTIS KENYA LIMITED......APPLICANT VERSUS CHEBUSWA LIMITED...............RESPONDENT Coram: Hon.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
I therefore find that the application for revision dated 29th July, 2020 is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The exparte orders granted on 30th July, 2020 staying the lower court proceedings are automatically vacated by the dismissal of the application.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI CONST. 20 OF 2018 ATHUMANI SHUSHE BAHOLA...........................................PETITIONER VERSUS REPUBLIC..............................................................................RESPONDENT CORAM: Hon.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.