Judgment[2023] KEHC 26694
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: Commercial and TaxCase number Winding Up Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
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: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
In light of what I have stated, I hereby make the following orders; a) The petitioner shall continue to be held in Lang’ata Women’s Prison or such other place as may be designated by the Minister in terms of section 43(2)(b) of the Citizenship and Immigration Act, 2011 pending her removal from Kenya or pending such time as any claim lodged by her, within 30 days from the date hereof, is determined by a competent authority under relevant legislation. b) The Prison authorities shall ensure tha
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Suit 379 of 2004 ANTHONY AMBAKA KEGODE ……….............................……………..1ST PLAINTIFF UHAI LIMITED………………………….............................………………2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS FOUR NINETY INVESTMENT LIMITED…….............................…..1ST DEFENDANT ADAM GRAIG OGDEN …………..……………..........................……2ND DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN SAFARI AIR LIMITED………..........................….3RD DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2004 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
in the submission that the finding in fact has no evidence to support it, we have come to the conclusion that there is evidence on record capable of being taken into consideration to sustain the charge. There was overwhelming evidence of P.W.1., P.W.4 and P.W.5.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL SUIT NO. 3257 OF 1978 ERIC PETER WANJAU .................................................PLAINTIFF AND GEORGE MUNDET ....................................................DEFENDANT R U L I N G On 26th of March, 1993 this court entered a judgment pursuant to an Award filed and read in court on 2nd December, 1992, in the presence of Mr.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA 1 Barry Scutt & Another v Hitesh Jethwa & 2 Others High Court of Kenya at Nairobi June 29, 2000 Milimani Commercial Courts T Mbaluto, Judge Civil Case No 937 of 2000 June 29, 2000 T Mbaluto, Judge delivered the following ruling. This ruling relates to the issue as to who between the applicants who are the plaintiffs in this suit and the 3rd defendant/respondent should bear the costs of the application filed by the plaintiffs herein.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, SHAH & BOSIRE JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 1999 BETWEEN FRED KIPCHUMBA CHEPKWONY...............................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC....................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and judgment of the High Court of Kenya in Embu (Mr.
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Application
is Order VI rule 13(1) and an order under that provision is also equally appealable as of right under Order XLII rule 1. I am, therefore, satisfied that an appeal does lie in the instant case without leave from the decision of the Judge which is sought to be appealed against.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 249 of 1995 KHIMJI'S SECONDHAND MART....................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS TABURA SECURITY AGENCY (K).............................DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T On the 3rd of April, 1995 a plaint was filed in the MombasaHigh Court of Kenya District Registry. The Plaintiff wasdescribed as Kimji's Secondhand Mart - a business firm trading atMombasa.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 166 OF 1995 AGIP (KENYA) LIMITED…………...................………….….APPELLANT AND APPOLLOS KENNEDY MWANGI t/a APPOLLOS SERVICE STATION…………………………………........…RESPONDENT (Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Rimita, J.) dated 31/10/1994 in H.C.C.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Kimani v Republic High Court, at Mombasa March 18, 1991 Wambilyangah J Criminal Appeal Case No 266 of 1990 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No 269 of 1990 of the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Voi, JM Manyasi (Miss) RM) Evidence – identification evidence – accused momentarily encountering his attacker who later blindfolds him – whether circumstances conducive for proper identification - whether known foot marks can be used to support allegation of the pre
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 4549 OF 1987 BACHITTER SINGH CHASE …………..………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS BARCLAYS BANK OF KENYA LTD…..……..
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
stated that the owner of the lorry to show cause why maize and lorry should not be forfeited, that order did not preclude the owner of the maize to appear if he was not the owner of the lorry, and claim his maize. The appellants aware of that order as it was made in their presence at the sitting in which the court had convicted them and during the continuation of the same proceedings as it is apparent from the Court record of the proceedings of that day.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: PLATT, APALOO JJA & MASIME Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 67 OF 1985 SECURICOR (KENYA) LIMITED…….......…………………….APPLICANT VERSUS EA DRAPERS LIMITED …………………….……….....1ST DEFENDANT COMBINED WAREHOUSES LIMITED…..……….…..1ST DEFENDANT (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) RULING The applicant Securicor (K) Limited, gave notice on October 21 1986 that it would move the court for an order that leave be granted to the applicant, to amend the applicant’s
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: CivilCivil Appeal
I agree with the judgment of Nyarangi JA. The appeal will be allowed with the orders proposed by him.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Kitavi v Cosatal Bottlers Limited Court of Appeal, at Mombasa September 10, 1985 Kneller, Hancox & Nyarangi JJA Civil Appeal No 69 of 1984 (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) Cases 1. Paris v Stephey Borough Council (No 2) [1951] 1 AER 42 2.