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
35,067 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 21 September 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CAUSE NO. 96 OF 2013 BERNARD DAMUNGA NDUNDA...........................................................................CLAIMANT -VERSUSKERIO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY...........................................................RESPONDENT (Before Hon.
High Court at NakuruCourtCriminal Case No. 3160 of 2003
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2004 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.
High Court at MombasaattackCriminal Appeal 266 of 1990
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Kimani v Republic High Court, at Mombasa March 18, 1991 Wambilyangah J Criminal Appeal Case No 266 of 1990 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No 269 of 1990 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Voi, JM Manyasi (Miss) RM) Evidence – identification evidence – accused momentarily encountering his attacker who later blindfolds him – whether circumstances conducive for proper identification - whether known foot marks can be used to support allegation of the pre
High Court at KisumuCourt,Udo UdomaCase number Criminal Appeal 34 of 1990
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
stated that the owner of the lorry to show cause why maize and lorry should not be forfeited, that order did not preclude the owner of the maize to appear if he was not the owner of the lorry, and claim his maize. The appellants aware of that order as it was made in their presence at the sitting in which the court had convicted them and during the continuation of the same proceedings as it is apparent from the Court record of the proceedings of that day.
High Court at MachakosCourtCase number Criminal Appeal 95 of 1987
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 95 OF 1987 MULANDI………,……………….………APPELLANT V REPUBLIC…………………………………..RESPONDENT
Court of Appeal at NakuruHigh,CourtCriminal Appeal No 160 of 1984
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
Kinuthia v Republic High Court, at Nairobi Mbaluto J Criminal Appeal No 460 of 1986 November 10, 1986 Mbaluto T delivered the following Judgment. Kinuthia The appellant was convicted of theft from a person contrary to section 279 (a) of the Penal Code and sentenced to fourteen months imprisonment plus four strokes.
Court of Appeal at NakuruHigh,CourtCase number Criminal Appeal 160 of 1984
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
Kinuthia v Republic High Court, at Nairobi Mbaluto J Criminal Appeal No 460 of 1986 November 10, 1986 Mbaluto T delivered the following Judgment. Kinuthia The appellant was convicted of theft from a person contrary to section 279 (a) of the Penal Code and sentenced to fourteen months imprisonment plus four strokes.
High Court at NairobiAluochCase number Criminal Appeal 994 of 1984
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
conviction set aside and order that each be released forthwith unless otherwise, lawfully held. As for Julius Omando who confessed on oath to having stolen the complainant’s clothes, I direct that he be investigated further.