Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsMiscellaneous Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
Moses Kiprotich Rutto & Others v Telkom Kenya Limited (Cause 139 (N) of 2009) [2014] KEIC 9 (KLR) (Employment and Labour) (22 December 2014) (Ruling) Moses Kiprotich Rutto & Others v Telkom Kenya Limited [2014] eKLR Neutral citation: [2014] KEIC 9 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR CAUSE 139 (N) OF 2009 NZIOKI WA MAKAU, J DECEMBER 22, 2014 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT AT NAIROBI EMPLOYMENT AND LABOUR CAUSE 139 (N) OF 2009 NZIOKI WA MAKAU
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
which was advanced to the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The principal prayer therein was an order directing the Defendant to register a discharge of charge at the lands office in favour of the Plaintiff and to forthwith release the original title document over Nairobi/Block III/601 – Komarock to the Plaintiff.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI ELECTION PETITION NO. 20 OF 2008 IN THE MATTER OF : THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS ACT (CHAPTER 7, LAWS OF KENYA) AND THE REGULATIONS MADE THEREUNDER AND IN THE MATTER OF: ELECTION FOR THE KANDARA PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE PETITION OF ALICE MUTHONI WAHOME BETWEEN ALICE MUTHONI WAHOME ………….…..........…………PETITIONER VERSUS JAMES MAINA KAMAU …..……….….……...……..1ST RESPONDENT REUBEN WARUI CHEGE ………
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
(d) It is just in the circumstances of this case and in the interests of justice that the restraining orders be granted. Opposing the application, the 1st Defendant filed grounds of opposition on 9th July, 2010 which were supplemented by the 1st Defendant’s replying affidavit sworn by Jon Waïn, the 1st Defendant’s Legal Counsel on 15th July, 2010.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION) CIVIL CASE NO. 310 OF 2007 ANTHONY MAINA NJIIRI (suing as attorney for JAMES NJIIRI)…….………..…………………….................
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION) CIVIL CASE NO. 310 OF 2007 ANTHONY MAINA NJIIRI (suing as attorney for JAMES NJIIRI)…….………..…………………….................
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS CIVIL CASE NO. 731 OF 2003 ALEX KIARIE THIRU.......................................................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS CANNON ASSURANCE (K) LIMITED .......................................................................DEFENDANT
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 39 of 2005 JAYNTILAL DHAMSHI GOSRANI ……………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS KENYA OIL COMPANY LTD.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 616 of 2009 DR. MAINA MWEA T/A SPAX PUB & RESTAURANT ......................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS GEORGE KIMANI NJUKI ………………..…………… ………...1ST DEFENDANT GEPRGE WAINAINA REBO…………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
conduct of the defendant’s representatives could not excuse the failure to comply with the unless order the pleading had property been struck out.” The general principle is that orders of the court must be obeyed and a litigant who deliberately and without proper excuse disobeys such an order is not allowed to proceed. Singh Gitau for the Respondent did not come to court to argue his client’s position.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Misc Appli 1670 of 2007 ABID ALI HASHIM……...………..……………….APPLICANT VERSUS ANTONY KIHONGE MUHIA …..……………RESPONDENT RULING Before me is a notice of motion filed pursuant to Section 18 (1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant seek an order of the court to transfer Nairobi CMCCC No.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
Plaintiffs case when she observed that the Plaintiffs had not shown a prima facie case that the orders sought in their plaint could be granted. On the basis of a letter by Kodak Company in which Kodak
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
I have before me an application by the plaintiff expressed to be brought under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act for one primary order, save for costs, that “a temporary injunction do issue restraining the defendant whether by itself, its servants and/or employees from selling or offering for sale whether by public auction or private treaty, transferring, charging, leasing, pledging or in any other way alienati
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
Plaintiffs case when she observed that the Plaintiffs had not shown a prima facie case that the orders sought in their plaint could be granted. On the basis of a letter by Kodak Company in which Kodak
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civil Case 373 of 2006 AFRICA ECO-CAMPS LTD. …………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS FIDELITY COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Suit 379 of 2004 ANTHONY AMBAKA KEGODE ……….............................……………..1ST PLAINTIFF UHAI LIMITED………………………….............................………………2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS FOUR NINETY INVESTMENT LIMITED…….............................…..1ST DEFENDANT ADAM GRAIG OGDEN …………..……………..........................……2ND DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN SAFARI AIR LIMITED………..........................….3RD DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 371 of 2003 ECON CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING LIMITED………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS GIRO COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED………...……………..1ST DEFENDANT WAITHAKA MWANGI………………………..…………..……..2ND DEFENDANT R U L I N G The 1st defendant has moved this court, by Notice of Motion dated 13th July 2005, brought under 0XXXIX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The 1st defendant seeks an
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI Civil Case 1020 of 2002 ALUTA HOLDINGS LTD………………………..………………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS RAJ PARMAR……………………………………………………..…DEFENDANT RULING In this application (by chamber summons dated 7th October, 2005) the Defendant, RAJ PARMAR, seeks an order that the Plaintiff, ALUTA HOLDINGS LTD, do serve the Defendant particulars of the plaint as requested for in the request for particulars filed on 22nd July, 2005. The Defenda
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsMiscellaneous Application
factors or to omit to consider relevant factors, and according to the Advocates Remuneration Order itself, some of the relevant factors to take into account include the nature and importance of the course or matter, the amount or value of the subject matter involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings and any direction by the trial judge." In this case, the applicant has faulted the taxing officer for failing to take into account the sum which was awarded by t