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
High Court at Nyamirajudge High CourtCriminal Appeal E023 of 2022
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
Alukhaba v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal E007 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) (23 December 2022) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA CRIMINAL APPEAL E007 OF 2021 WM MUSYOKA, J DECEMBER 23, 2022 BETWEEN JOHN ALUKHABA ................................................................................. APPELLANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ....................................
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Judicial Review
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE TRANSPORT LICENSING APPEALS BOARD AT NAIVASHA APPEAL CASE NO 16 OF 2020 EXPRESS PRESTIGE SHUTTLE LTD................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THE NATIONAL TRANSPORT & SAFETY AUTHORITY..........RESPONDENT RULING
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
I therefore find that the application for revision dated 29th July, 2020 is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The exparte orders granted on 30th July, 2020 staying the lower court proceedings are automatically vacated by the dismissal of the application.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Constitutional Petition
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: CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KOOME, OKWENGU & KANTAI, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2014 BETWEEN AGGREY CHITERI…………………….........................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC OF KENYA……....…..…………………..…RESPONDENT (An appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Majanja J.), dated 30th May, 2014 in High Court Petition No.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, SHAH & BOSIRE, JJ.A) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 224 OF 1999 BETWEEN JASWANT SINGH DHINGRA ..............................APPLICANT AND JASWINDER DHINGRA ..................................RESPONDENT (An application to strike out Notice of Appeal filed herein on 18th day of December, 1998 in an intended appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, SHAH & BOSIRE JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 1999 BETWEEN FRED KIPCHUMBA CHEPKWONY...............................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC....................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and judgment of the High Court of Kenya in Embu (Mr.
High Court at NairobiOwuor,Oguk,OndariCase number Criminal Appeal 629 of 1990
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Criminal Appeal 629 of 1990 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 645 of 1986 of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru: I.C.C.
High Court at NairobiOwuor,Oguk,OndariCriminal Case No. 645 of 1986
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Criminal Appeal 629 of 1990 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 645 of 1986 of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru: I.C.C.
matter than the appellate tribunal can be; and the appellate tribunal will generally defer to the conclusion which the trial judge has formed”. LORD WRIGHT, in the course of his speech at p.265, said: “Two principles are beyond controversy.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Gachuhi, Akiwumi & Lakha JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO 116 OF 1987 Between FRANCIS WAINAINA ....................................................APPELLANT AND KENYA COMMERCIAL FINANCE CO. LTD...............RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Lady Justice Aluoch) dated 25th day of February, 1987 in HCCC No 2539 of 1981) ********************* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appellant won a contract to supply Kenya Breweries with
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi, Omolo & Akiwumi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. KARIUKI ……………….................................…………….……………….APPELLANT AND HON.
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.
There was no evidence of service of the order 2. Neither the order nor the notice of motion nor any other notice in connection therewith that was served carried an indorsement of penal obligation or consequence.
Court for want of prosecution be set aside. The learned judge while setting aside the dismissal order declined an application for leave to appeal without assigning any reasons.
Division and case type: Criminal·Case number Criminal Application
Imanyara v Republic High Court, at Nairobi May 9, 1991 Porter J Criminal Application No 190 of 1991 Criminal Practice and Procedure – bail –renewed application for bail – whether a rehearing of a previous bail application . Criminal Practice and Procedure – bail – whether an applicant is entitled to apply for bail as many times as he can – section 123(3) Criminal Procedure Code.
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.
was not a party to the suit in the superior court; and the learned trial judge’s error in making orders regarding the burial of the deceased which were incapable of performance. In regard to the foregoing grounds of appeal, counsel for the appellants, Miss Abida Ali who appeared with Miss Betty Murungi, submitted that the fact that the deceased became apostate did not dissolve his marriage to the rst appellant as there was no evidence that that fact was communicated to her.