Judgment[1999] KEHC 106
IDRIS KIBIRANGA v INCAFEX HAULIERS E.A. LIMITED
High Court at Nairobi
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS CIVIL SUIT NO. 2234 OF 1993 IDRIS KIBIRANGA ........................................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 250 OF 1998 BETWEEN MIGWANI FAMILY HELPERS PROJECT ......................APPELLANT AND HAMIDAS BOUTIQUE.....................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Hon.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
In absence of any indication my brother was correct in proceeding with he trial on 20.3.96 under order 9b CPR. From the evidence before the court the plaintiff stated that he boarded the defendants lorry.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 1571 OF 1998 ALEX OKELLO ODIANYA ............................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA Civil Case 76 of 1995 ABDI KAWIRI.....................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS YOU GUO JIANG SIETCO.........................................DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA Civil Case 76 of 1995 ABDI KAWIRI.....................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS YOU GUO JIANG SIETCO.........................................DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
Co-Operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shiraz Shabudin Sayani t/a Makupa AGIP Service Station (Civil Suit 23 of 1999) [1999] KEHC 170 (KLR) (19 April 1999) (Ruling) Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shiraz Shabudin Sayani t/a Makupa Agip Service Station [1999] eKLR Neutral citation: [1999] KEHC 170 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT 23 OF 1999 PN WAKI, J APRIL 19, 1999 BETWEEN CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LTD .............................................. PLAINTIFF AND SHIRAZ
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NUMBER 219 OF 1998 BETWEEN GALAXY PAINTS COMPANY LIMITED ...................... APPELLANT AND FALCON GUARDS LIMITED .............................
Division and case type: CivilCase number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: OWUOR, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, TUNOI & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. RAILA AMOLO ODINGA CHARLES MARANGA ....................................APPELLANTS AND PEREZ MALANDE OLINDO REV.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Suit 40 of 1998 MAECEOM CONSULTANTS...........................................................................PLAINTIFF versus KERIO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.....................................DEFENDANT RULING The defendants herein who are Messrs Kerio Valley Development Authority vide their letter ref KVDA/HQS/PRJ/630/VOL.XVI dated 6/3/97 wrote to the plaintiff Maeceom Consultants. The subject of the letter was valuation of T
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 62 of 1995 AHMED ABUBAR & OTHERS …………………….. APPELLANTS VERSUS BAKARI BARAKA & 5 OTHERS ………..........…RESPONDENTS From Original Civil Suit No.
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civil Appli 32 of 1998 MUNGAI MUNA...........................................................................................................APPLICANT AND ESMAEL N. MUNGAI..............................................................................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCase number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civil Appli 32 of 1998 MUNGAI MUNA...........................................................................................................APPLICANT AND ESMAEL N. MUNGAI..............................................................................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: KWACH, SHAH & OWUOR JJ.A) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4 OF 1999 BETWEEN GHARIB MOHAMED GHARIB.............................APPLICANT AND SULEKHA MOHAMED NAAMAN.............................RESPONDENT (An application to file appeal out of time in an intended appeal from a ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa at (Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
HALL EQUITORIAL LTD v OLYMIPC FRUIT PROCESSORS: ORDER Ruling delivered. E’ O’KUBASU JUDGE
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
what I need to consider in this taxation bearing in mind the Authorities cited, I have come to a conclusion that Ksh.120,000/= would be reasonable fee for instructions in this appeal which I allow. Ksh.180,000/= is taxed off from this item.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
instant case as at 6th July 1995 when the consent letter was written and 24th July 1995 when the order was signed, M/s. Meenye Company advocates was not acting for the plaintiff.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
decision of Lakha, J.A., a learned single judge of this Court, to seek to vary, discharge or reverse his order by the Court under the provisions of rule 54 (2) of the Rules. Oraro has submitted that the respondent having not chosen any of those options he cannot now challenge the consent order which he has not attempted to have set aside.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Alongside the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application by way of Chamber Summons seeking orders that the plaintiffs be restored by way of a mandatory injunction into possession of L.R. 209/8258 forthwith, that the defendant be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of the suit property until this suit is heard and determined, that the defendants be restrained from interfering with the running of the plaintiffs business on L.R.