Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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: CriminalCriminal Case
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram:Madan, Potter JJA & Chesoni Ag JA ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 1982 BETWEEN J M...............................................................................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC...............................................................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram:Madan, Potter JJA & Chesoni Ag JA ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 1982 BETWEEN J M...............................................................................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC...............................................................................RESPONDENT