Judgment[1989] KECA 48
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 Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 95 OF 1987 MULANDI………,……………….………APPELLANT V REPUBLIC…………………………………..RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Kinuthia v Republic High Court, at Nairobi Mbaluto J Criminal Appeal No 460 of 1986 November 10, 1986 Mbaluto T delivered the following Judgment. Kinuthia The appellant was convicted of theft from a person contrary to section 279 (a) of the Penal Code and sentenced to fourteen months imprisonment plus four strokes.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Kinuthia v Republic High Court, at Nairobi Mbaluto J Criminal Appeal No 460 of 1986 November 10, 1986 Mbaluto T delivered the following Judgment. Kinuthia The appellant was convicted of theft from a person contrary to section 279 (a) of the Penal Code and sentenced to fourteen months imprisonment plus four strokes.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 1983 JAMES ODEMBA OTIENO...............................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC.......................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from Conviction and Sentence of the Court Martial at 7th Kenya Rifles Langata Barracks, Nairobi)