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: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISC. 494 OF 2003 DOMINIC ARONY AMOLO……………………….……..……..PLAINTIFF V E R S U S THE HON.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 120 OF 1996 KIATHI TRADING CO.
Division and case type: CivilORIGINATING SUMMONS
The respondents swear that they were prepared to accept the applicants papers if they were in order despite the order from the Chief Magistrate, Nakuru if the same were presented within the prescribed time. No attempt was made to present the papers within the prescribed time.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
The respondents swear that they were prepared to accept the applicants papers if they were in order despite the order from the Chief Magistrate, Nakuru if the same were presented within the prescribed time. No attempt was made to present the papers within the prescribed time.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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.
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