Judgment[2021] KEHC 907
others v Intestate Petroleum Company Limited
Division and case type: Commercial and TaxCase number Winding Up Cause
4 min read
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Full-text search is temporarily limited — results match titles and citations only.
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
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionPetition
Order Ruling duly read ISAAC LENAOLA JUDGE By Consent Application dated 12th August 2015 is granted as prayed but Senator Johnstone Muthama is enjoined as an Interested Party and shall file Submissions within 7 days on matters affecting him only. Submissions to be highlighted on 12th January 2016.
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
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
decision of Lakha, J.A., a learned single judge of this Court, to seek to vary, discharge or reverse his order by the Court under the provisions of rule 54 (2) of the Rules. Oraro has submitted that the respondent having not chosen any of those options he cannot now challenge the consent order which he has not attempted to have set aside.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal