Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gicheru, Kwach & Cockar JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 1991 BETWEEN SHARMA.............................................................................................APPELLANT AND HANDA T/A K.A.HANDA SECONDARY SCHOOLS...................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Mr Justice Samuel Odhiambo Oguk) dated 26th November 1990, in Civil Case No 42 of 1986) *******************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET CIVIL SUIT NO. 23 OF 1992 D.M.AMAYAMU..............................................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS BENJAMIN K.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
The judge considered a number of letters exchanged between the proprietors and came to the conclusion that they constituted a memorandum or note within the meaning of section 3 of the Act and accordingly binding on the appellants. The first is a letter dated 16th July 1981 from the first appellant to SK Koinange in which he said: “Dear (Mr) Koinange Sale of Plot No 710/17/Mombasa Mr Solomon Murugu has shown me the sale agreement documents for Shs 550,000/-.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi, Omolo & Akiwumi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. KARIUKI ……………….................................…………….……………….APPELLANT AND HON.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: TUNOI, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi,Cockar & Omolo JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 1986 BETWEEN NGORORO...............................................................................APPELLANT AND NDUTHA & ANOTHER.....................................................RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi of the Chief Justice the Honourable Mr Justice Simpson delivered on 9th August, 1985) in HCCC No 3350 of 1984) *********************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 299 of 1990 SILAS MIHESO ...................................................................................PLAINTIFF - Versus - MODERN BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED...........DEFENDANT J U D G M E NT In 1984 the plaintiff was employed by the Furniture CentreLtd. But in May he entered into negotiations withthe defendant's managing director..
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
as if their action had been begun by filing a plaint. According to him, the provisions of rule 10 of order XXXVI of the Rules had been brought to the attention of the judge and since a claim by adverse possession must only be brought through an Originating Summons, if the issues therein were disputed, the superior court should have dealt with the matter as if the same had been begun by filing a plaint.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: PALL J.A (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 372 OF 1996 BETWEEN DAVID KONGO .......................................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL SUIT NO. 375 OF 1992 RICHARD BOYWA GOR................................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS EAST AFRICAN SUGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.............................................DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 637 of 1990 BROWN M. MULATYA..........................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
When the application came before Aluoch J ex parte on 25th April 1994, she declined to grant the orders sought by the Mayor and directed that all the defendants be served as the matter was of some general public interest. She adjourned the application to 26th April 1994 for hearing inter partes.
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI SUCCESSION CAUSE 881 OF 1993 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF DANIEL EDWIN OCHIENG (DECEASED) MARGARET JUMA OCHIENG..........................................................................APPLICANT VERSUS 1. PHILIP ODUOR......................................................................................RESPONDENTS RULING The marriage certificate No 29947 shows that Daniel Edwin Ochieng, then 30 years old, married Margaret Juma Odhiam
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram:Cockar, Muli & Tunoi JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 76 OF 1986 BETWEEN BERNARD KIARIE....................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THUKU NJOROGE................................................................RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr Justice William Mbaya) dated 17th October, 1985 in HCC No 2153 of 1979) *****************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NYERI ( Coram: Gachuhi, Kwach & Akiwumi JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 1993 BETWEEN KENINDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED........................................APPELLANT AND PATRIC MUTURI.....................................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Mr Justice Kuloba) dated 11th day of May, 1993 in HCCC No 114 of 1990) *********************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
delivered on the 17th April, 1990, the learned judge dismissed the application with costs. It is that order dismissing the appellant’s application which forms the subject of the appeal before us.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
prospective petitioner is to strictly adhere to and observe the rules prescribed in the procedure in order to be able to enjoy the rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution. So if the petitioner has failed to meet any obligation which happens to be of a mandatory nature then it will equally defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the Act if the breach of the mandatory obligation is viewed with a blind eye.
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 361 OF 1994 SIMEL & OTHERS.........................................................................APPLICANTS VERSUS COUNTY COUNCIL OF NAROK & OTHERS...........................RESPONDENTS RULING The applicants have applied for leave to apply for judicial review to quash the decisions of the County Council of Narok affecting the applicants’ right to prohibit similar decisions being taken by it and to prohibi
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 17 OF 1993 MURITHI KAGUNDU ……………………………………….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 17 OF 1993 MURITHI KAGUNDU ……………………………………….