We use strictly necessary cookies to run the site. With your consent we also use performance cookies to understand how the site is used. Read the cookie policy.
Court decisions & case law | Wakili Link
Case law
Search court decisions
47,624 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 21 September 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and Land·Petition
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: Environment and Land·Land Case
That this Honourable Court be pleased to revive this suit which abated by this Court's order on 2nd July, 2012. That this Honourable Court be pleased to retain the Inhibition Order lodged upon the suit land and to restrain the Defendant from wasting, cutting trees and/or vegetation or anything growing on the suit premises and from harassing the Applicant or the heirs or Dependants of the late Plaintiff until the determination of this suit.
High Court at NairobiCase number Civil Suit 460 of 2007
Division and case type: Environment and Land·Civil Suit
The litigants argument is found at page 5 of the ruling 2nd paragraph line 10 from the bottom: “that order vii rule 1(2) Civil Procedure Rules is silent as to whether each plaintiff should file a verifying affidavit, that there is no need for filing affidavit by each plaintiff as what is to be verified is the correctness of the averments and not their truthfulness, that the truthfulness of the claim is a matter for the trial, that the verifying affidavit of the first respondent is sufficient
Court of Appeal at NairobiEtyang,JUDGE APPEALCase number Criminal Appeal 129 of 2001
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
in the submission that the finding in fact has no evidence to support it, we have come to the conclusion that there is evidence on record capable of being taken into consideration to sustain the charge. There was overwhelming evidence of P.W.1., P.W.4 and P.W.5.