Judgment[2002] KECA 293
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NYERI (CORAM: SHAH, BOSIRE & OWUOR JJ A ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 108 OF 2000 BETWEEN ANDREW NDAMBUKI MUTHIKE..................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC .................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court at Nyeri, Juma & Mulwa JJ dated June 6, 2000 in High Court Criminal Appeal No 250 of 1998) ***************************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT This is a second appeal from the decision of the High Court of Kenya at Nyeri.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: LAKHA, BOSIRE & KEIWUA JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.120 OF 2002 BETWEEN CLEOPHAS ONYANGO OLAJO ...................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ..................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgement of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr. Oguk JJ.) dated 18th November 1997 in H.C.CR.A.
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CORAM: SHAH, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
superior court was as noted elsewhere in this judgment; the appeal arises out of two interlocutory orders made by the superior court on November 20, 2000. In addition to declining to join the companies in the Petition, the Commissioner acceded to the prayer to have and struck out the Petition.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU (CORAM: OMOLO, TUNOI & O’KUBASU JJ A ) CIVIL APPLICATION NO 51 OF 2001 BETWEEN ABRAHAM TENOI KIMALA................................APPLICANT AND JOB KIPSANG SUTER ......................................RESPONDENT RULING OF THE COURT This is a reference from the ruling of a learned single judge of this Court delivered on 25th September, 2001, whereby, in exercise of his powers under rule 4 of our rules, he refused to grant the applicant extension of time within