Judgment[2019] KEHC 486
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional 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: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, PALL, JJ.A. & BOSIRE, AG.J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: SHAH, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: TUNOI, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: Commercial and TaxInsolvency Cause
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, MASIME & COCKAR JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 111 OF 1990 PAUL JOSEPH NGEI …………………...…… APPELLANT VERSUS OFFICIAL RECEIVER……………..….……. RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Ruling and Order of the High Court at Nairobi (Akiwumi J) dated 14th June 1990 in High Court Bankruptcy Cause No 14 of 1988)
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
quash the conviction recorded against him, set aside the sentence and orders imposed on him and order that he be released from prison forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Ali v Republic High Court, at Mombasa May 4, 1992 Omolo J Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1992 May 4, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Judgment.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Thuo v Republic High Court, at Mombasa March 3, 1992 Omolo J Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1992 March 3, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Judgment.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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