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
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Appeal 860 of 2004 BLUESHIELD INSURANCE CO. LTD……...…APPELLANT VERSUS SAMUEL NYAGA NGURUKIRI…..…………..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T 1.
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.
application is hereby struck outDismissed2 min read
High Court at Mombasathe,attached goodsCase number Civil Case 823 of 1991
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 823 OF 1991 MATHIGU………...…… APPLICANT VERSUS MWAURA……..…………. DEBTOR RULING This is an application by the objector to the attachment of motor vehicle KXK 245 in execution of the decree in this suit.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET CIVIL CASE NO 61 OF 1991 GABRIEL NDUNGU KINUTHIA.........................APPLICANT VERSUS GEORGE W WAWERU................................RESPONDENT RULING On 27th December 1991, the plaintiff/applicant filed a suit against the defendant/respondent and claimed from him both general and special damages arising out of an accident which occurred on 16th June 1989 along Nyeri-Nyahururu Road in which the plaintiff/applicant sustained severe injur
That evidence so far as it was adduced by the respondent fell foul of the requirements of rule 5 of Order 75: it failed to establish that the appellant was “the relevant “person”. The upshot of that is that the High Court did not have admiralty jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction.
Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,HeCase number Civil Appeal 38 of 1986
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
power to make nor was there any appeal from the order for possession for reconstruction. The time to consider whether there was to be a true reconstruction was when the Tribunal made its order of February 9, 1976.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (Coram: Platt, Apaloo JJA & Masime Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 1986 BETWEEN OKONG’O...........................................................................APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOTHER..............................RESPONDENT
High Court at NairobiHeCase number Civil Case 1271 of 1979
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE No. 1271 OF 1979 SYAN..................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS SUNSET HOTEL LTD...................................RESPONDENT
High Court at MombasaHis,AllCase number Civil Case 1034 of 1983
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
Ngeyma v Akamba Public Service High Court, at Mombasa February 8, 1985 Mandari J Civil Case No 1034 of 1983 Cases Benham Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] 64 TLR 177 Firozali Noormchmed Haji v Elias Kapomba Toka C A 46/80 (unreported) Reckless V P C Allday & Co Ltd & another, 9 – 018. Advocates Anjarwalla for plaintiff Juma for defendants February 8, 1985, Mandari J delivered the following Judgment.
High Court at MombasaHis,AllCivil Case No 1034 of 1983
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
Ngeyma v Akamba Public Service High Court, at Mombasa February 8, 1985 Mandari J Civil Case No 1034 of 1983 Cases Benham Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] 64 TLR 177 Firozali Noormchmed Haji v Elias Kapomba Toka C A 46/80 (unreported) Reckless V P C Allday & Co Ltd & another, 9 – 018. Advocates Anjarwalla for plaintiff Juma for defendants February 8, 1985, Mandari J delivered the following Judgment.
What, today, is the correct approach of a court to an application for summary judgment under order XXXV rule 1 where there is a claim on a note and the defence is a set-off or counterclaim? Should the payment due on it be held up until the trial of the set-off or counterclaim has been heard?