Judgment[2016] KEHC 695
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION COURT MARTIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL 5 Of 2016. 87058 SPTE ALLAN OMONDI ANYANGA................APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, MWILU & ODEK, JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2015 BETWEEN ABDI YUSUF MAALIM …………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………………………..……… RESPONDENT (An appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, (Justice Muchemi) dated 19th December, 2013 in H.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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.
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Cockar, Omolo, Tunoi JJ A ) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NAI. 4 OF 1994 BETWEEN REPUBLIC.................................................................................APPLICANT AND 1.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 95 OF 1987 MULANDI………,……………….………APPELLANT V REPUBLIC…………………………………..RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
unreasonable to hold that the mere possession of the pistol on this date is sufficient to found a conclusion that the appellant participated in the robbery. Neither the trial magistrate nor the High Court pinpointed the evidence they considered cogent enough to justify the conclusion that the 1st appellant participated in the robbery.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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.