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
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, MWILU & ODEK, JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2015 BETWEEN ABDI YUSUF MAALIM …………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………………………..……… RESPONDENT (An appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, (Justice Muchemi) dated 19th December, 2013 in H.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 316 OF 1997 (From Original conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.
Court of Appeal at NairobiOsiemo,JUDGE APPEALCase number Criminal Appeal 10 of 1994
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1994 BETWEEN ELIZABETH NGELELE JOHN MULI MUNYAO KIOKO MBULA SAA MUSYOKA KILONZO.....................................................APPELLANTS AND REPUBLIC................................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) dated 8th December, 1993 in H.C.CR.C.
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeals numbered
& Pall JJ.A) on the 22nd day of May, 1997 as, in both the appeals, the date on the copy of the orders appealed against did not coincide with the date of the order and as the order appealed against appeared to have been certified on a date subsequent to the filing of the appeal. For record purposes the applicant in both applications before me is the same party, that is, Machakos Ranching Company Limited but the respondents are different.
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made can only apply to the court which made the order to set it aside.”. This court, in its more recent decision in the case of Michael Miana and K.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 182 OF 1994 MACHAKOS DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED……….........APPELLANT AND PHILIP NZUKI KIILU…………………....................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Honourable Mr.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA, JJ.A & BOSIRE Ag. 34 OF 1996 BETWEEN BONIFACE MUSYOKA NDOLO..........................................APPELLANT AND PAULINE KATONGE MUSAU…………….........................SPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) delivered on 29th November, 1995 IN H.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA, JJ.A & BOSIRE Ag. 34 OF 1996 BETWEEN BONIFACE MUSYOKA NDOLO..........................................APPELLANT AND PAULINE KATONGE MUSAU…………….........................SPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) delivered on 29th November, 1995 IN H.
Court of Appeal at NairobiEngland,JUDGE APPEALCase number Criminal Application 4 of 1994
Division and case type: Criminal·Case number Criminal Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Cockar, Omolo, Tunoi JJ A ) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NAI. 4 OF 1994 BETWEEN REPUBLIC.................................................................................APPLICANT AND 1.
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.
High Court at NairobiEnglandCase number Civil Case 590 of 1988
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 590 OF 1988 ALPHONCE ANDALO & ANOTHER t/a Highspeed General Supplies ……………………. APPLICANT VERSUS JAMES GLEEN RUSSEL LTD………......................…...RESPONDENT RULING The Notice of Motion application which came for hearing was filed in court on 23rd March 1988.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, PLATT & GACHUHI JJA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 18 OF 1987 OTIENO……………………………… APPLICANT VERSUS OUGO & ANOTHER….…………..RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution pending an appeal in the High Court at Nairobi, Bosire J)
unreasonable to hold that the mere possession of the pistol on this date is sufficient to found a conclusion that the appellant participated in the robbery. Neither the trial magistrate nor the High Court pinpointed the evidence they considered cogent enough to justify the conclusion that the 1st appellant participated in the robbery.
Division and case type: Anti-Corruption·Miscellaneous Criminal Application
tends as a direction to the Court hearing the application for Order of Prohibition to grant the Order without using its own discretion whether it should do so. The Attorney-General did not need any authority, nor a reminder, that in the light of the opinions expressed by the Constitutional Court he could terminate the proceedings even when coupled with a wet hope that he would do so.