Judgment[2021] KEHC 817
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 KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU HCCA NO. 72 OF 2004 A F ………………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS H A …………………………………..…………..
Division and case type: GeneralCase
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: OMOLO, J.A (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 141 OF 2004 BETWEEN WALTER AWUOTH AYUGI ………………………………………… APPLICANT AND HESBORN SULE OKOTH ………………………………………… RESPONDENT (Application for leave to file and serve notice and record of appeal out of time in an intended appeal from the ruling and orders of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Tanui, J) dated 11th November, 2003 in H.C.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO. DANIEL ………………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS JAMES M.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CORAM: KEIWUA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO.
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 OF KENYA AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL 130 OF 1996 CALISTUS OCHIENO OYALO suing as next friend 1. SYLIVIA OCHIENO OYALO 2.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM:GICHERU, AKIWUMI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 33 OF 1995 BETWEEN MWITA MERENGO………………………….APPELLANT AND WEREMA MERENGO………………….RESPONDENT (Appeal from the judgment/order of the High Court of Kenya at Kisii (Mabaluto , J.) dated 14th September, 1994 IN H.C.C.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
For the above reasons I allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and orders of the court below and order that the matter be re-tried by a magistrate with requisite monetary jurisdiction either in Nyeri or Nairobi. I entertain no doubts that the parties who have shown a keen interest in the disposal of the matter shall intimate to the deputy registrar of this Court where they next want to be heard.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MERU CIVIL CASE NO 390 OF 1992(OS) KIBUNDI …………….…………….… PLAINTIFF VERSUS MUKOBWA & ANOTHER ….….... DEFENDANT RULING This is a preliminary question as to whether, by reason of the determination of the originating summons by the High Court, in the High Court Civil Case No 2411 of 1979 (OS), at Nairobi, the instant originating summons, which was also started at Nairobi but in due course was transferred here, is barred by the application of the doctrine of
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
There is no difficulty in complying with an order to that effect. It was a prayer for an order allowing the applicant to manifest her religion by doing a specific and clear act, namely, wearing her headscarf.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Accordingly we enhance the damages to Kshs 40,000/-. We uphold the order of the superior court as to costs in that Court but allow the costs of this appeal as the appellant against the respondent.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
have the ex-parte judgment set aside and in consequence all subsequent orders including the order appealed against are nullified. The appeal must be allowed.” It follows therefore, that the exparte judgment of 29th of April, 1991 was entered against the 2nd defendant/respondent, Mwika in error.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO 80 OF 1985 JOHN HAYO OWUOR.....................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL & 2 OTHERS..........DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU Civil Case 215 of 1990 M’IKUNYUA IBARI STEPHEN KIJOGI IBARI………………………….PLAINTIFFS versus NKANATA M’IBARI……………...…....……..……DEFENDANT 28/1/91 Coram: SO Oguk – judge Plaintiff in person Defendant - absent Court Interpreter – Murungi
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU CIVIL CASE NO 26 OF 1990 MURUNGI NKAMBI …. … PLAINTIFF versus DAVID M’ABURI … ….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CORUM:HANCOX CJ, GICHERU JA & COCKAR AG JA CIVIL APPEAL NO 8 OF 1990 BETWEEN ERNEST WESONGA KWEYU……………………….APPELLANT AND KWEYU OMUTO……….RESPONDENT (An appeal from the Judgment of the High Court at Kakamega (Mbogholi J) dated 12th day of October, 1989 in HCCC No 106 of 1987 (OS))
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
from the type of agency which has to be considered as part of the law of principal and agent, in order to ascertain whether a principal is bound by an agreement purportedly made by his agent. Since the defence was immediately taken over by the advocate the necessity thenceforth for a recognised agent disappeared.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO 191 OF 1985 HARUN MIRUKA…………....….…..…. PLAINTIFF VERSUS JARED OTIENO ABOK TOBIAS OMONDI ABOK….…...........DEFENDANTS RULING The two applicants Jared Otieno Abok (1st defendant) and Tobias Omondi Abok (2nd defendant) ask me by their Chamber Summons dated 20th June, 1989 and filed in court on 30th June, 1989 for several orders, namely, that the judgment entered against them ex parte on the 16th February, 1988 be set aside, that ther
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
On the prepondrance of evidence before me as a whole, I cannot help reaching the inescapable conclusion on such evidence, that the 2nd Defendant was not an innocent purchaser for value of the shit land. I am satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that he was very much aware when he entered into a written agreement with the 1st Defendant (Exhibit A) on the 5th of October, 1987 for the purchase of the suit land that the said land had then been sold to the Plaintiff wh