Judgment[2004] KEHC 831
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Employment and Labour Relationsmiscellaneous cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA MISC. APPLICATION NO.527.04 IN THE MATTER OF: EXHUMATION OF THE BODY OF ANNA NAFULA UWE AND PIUS WEYUSIA WAMALABE ……………………………………… APPLICANT VERSUS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ……………………………….……..
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU HCCA NO. 72 OF 2004 A F ………………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS H A …………………………………..…………..
Division and case type: Employment and Labour RelationsCase number Cause
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI. KENYA UNION OF DOMESTIC, HOTELS, EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, HOSPITALS & ALLIED WORKERS................Claimants.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Appeal went to great lengths to examine the relevant authorities and I totally agree with their conclusion on that issue. However in this case in considering the legal effect of the Act and the rules and particularly sections 14 (1) (a) and 14 (2) the provisions of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (cap 2) set out namely section 24 and section 33 were not considered.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
attractive to cite that UK law, we have our own EPR and they do not have a provision for a judge to order for any mode of service of a petition. Neither does section 20 of the Act.
Division and case type: Employment and Labour RelationsCase number Cause
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI. Chemmuttut, J.) CAUSE NO.8 OF 2002.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA DIVORCE CAUSE NO.9 “A” OF 1996 A M ………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF - versus – Y J M …………………………………………… DEFENDANT J U D G E M E N T The Petitioner A M is a Swiss national who on 31-1-92 married the Respondent a Kenyan citizen in Switzerland. Immediately after their marriage the two came to Kenya and cohabited together at Diani in South Coast of Mombasa.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Winding Up Cause 54 of 1998 In The Matter of Plant Industries Ltd v In The Matter of Companies Act Judgment. In this petitioner is asking for orders that the Respondent Company be wound up.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: OWUOR, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Winding Up Cause 40 of 1998 In The Matter of Autorec Spares Ltd and In The Matter of Companies Act Ruling. This is an application for injunction.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KAKAMEGA Election Petition 3 of 1998 THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT (CAP.7) AND REGULATIONS THEREUNDER AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE SHINYALU PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY BETWEEN JAPHETH GALAGATI SHAMALLA............................................ THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA...............RESPONDENTS RULING JAPHETH GALAGATI SHAMALLA (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner) fil
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Constitution cannot be exercised by any other organ of the Government. Further, the Standing Orders made under section 56 of the Constitution have excluded any discussion, in Parliament, of any matter pending in a Court of law.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Constitution cannot be exercised by any other organ of the Government. Further, the Standing Orders made under section 56 of the Constitution have excluded any discussion, in Parliament, of any matter pending in a Court of law.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Winding Up Cause 3 of 1996 In The Matter of Kenya National Trading Corporation Ltd and In The Matter of Companies Act Ruling. This is an application to set aside and or review the winding up order of November 3, 1997.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Winding Up Cause 12 of 1986 In The Matter of Plastic Products (K) Ltd and In The Matter of The Companies Act, CAP 486 Judgment. By a petition presented in court on 14th May, 1996, Mepal Plastics Kenya Limited, seeks a winding up order against Plastics Products (K) Ltd.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: TUNOI, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
That according to the company it has repaid the entire loan and has complied with the consent order aforesaid and is disputing the Kshs 7,228,478/85. In any event the company has secured payment due to the Petitioner by a charge over Title No NDUMBERI/NDUMBERI/T.613/30.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Winding Up Cause 38, 39 & 40 of 1991 In the Matter of Avitech Limited, Aircraft Engineering Services Ltd & Rent-A-Plane Ltd and In the Matter of the Companies Act Ruling. Three matters have been raised before me today for clarification.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA HIGH COURT, AT NAIROBI PROBATE & ADMINISTRATION NO 112 OF 1987 SARAH WAIRIMU KANGI ………….…..….. APPLICANT VERSUS MARGARET WAGATE NYAMU …....…….
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
By his notice of motion dated 17.2.93 which was later withdrawn the petitioner sought this Court’s orders to keep the ballot papers, boxes registers etc at a safe place until the hearing of the petition. But as noted above the motion was withdrawn on 22.3.9 when a notice of motion by the 2nd respondent, also dated 17.2.93 came up for hearing.