Judgment[2009] KEHC 568
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 36 OF 2008 ADBULHAKIM MOHAMED HASSAN HUSSEIN..............APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Ombija, J.) dated 26th March, 2008 in H.C.Cr. 196 of 2003) ***************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Abdulhakim Mohamed Hassan Hussein, the appellant herein was arraigned in the superior c
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 116 OF 1993 GURDARSHAN SINGH ………………………..APPELLANT VERSUS C.K.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO.53 OF 1993 MAJOR JOSEPH MWETERI IGWETA.............................APPELLANT VERSUS 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...........................................................RESPONDENTS (Being an appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Shields) dated 25th October, 1990 in H.C.C.A.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OWUOR, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA PEAL AT NYERI Civil Appeal 251 of 1996 1. JOSEPHAT MWANGI…………….................................……………………….APPELLANTS AND RUTH W.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 1993 BETWEEN CARTER & SONS LTD...................................................................APPELLANT AND 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 109 OF 1995 BETWEEN KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD ...............................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
distributed in accordance with the law of intestacy but instead of leaving it at that, he proceeded to order that the appellant and the respondents, as the only surviving persons beneficially entitled to the deceased's estate, should share the suit land in equal shares. This part of the Judge's order cannot be sustained.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & AKIWUMI, JJ.A. NAI.70 OF 1996 BETWEEN MWANZI ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED…..……………..APPLICANT AND MAINA MUCHIRI GILBERT ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED……………..RESPONDENTS (Application for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Macharia v Mungai (Civil Appeal 85 of 1990) [1995] KECA 165 (KLR) (18 October 1995) (Judgment) G.K. Macharia & another v Lucy N.
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionCivil Appeal
company and that the respondents would hold the Deed Plan, when released, to the Order of the Acceptances. As this letter is also relevant in the negotiations, I reproduce it’s contents hereunder:- “East African Acceptances Ltd Stanbank House Nairobi Dear Sirs, Galot Industries Ltd Purchase of LR Nos 1337 and 1338/2.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Apaloo CJ, Kwach, Cockar, Omolo & Tunoi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 145 OF 1990 TROUISTIK UNION INTERNATIONAL INGRID URSULA HEINZ …………………….….… APPELLANTS VERSUS JANE MBEYU ALICE MBEYU ………………………………..….. RESPONDENTS (Appeal from a Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Mr Justice Bosire) dated 17th October, 1989 in HCCC No 172 of 1987)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made, can apply to the Court which made the order to set it aside. The Court of Appeal in England in the case of Cozens v North Devon Hospital Management Committee [1966] 2 All ER 799, held that althought it was a general principle in regard to ex parte orders that the party affected by the order could apply for it to be discharged, yet it would be contrary to the intention of the Limitatio
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
accused persons for trial his Court had become functus officio and could not make any further order thereon. While hearing this constitutional issue, it was submitted before us that after the magistrate committed the accused persons for trial to the High Court counsel tried to draw the learned Chief Magistrate’s attention to the irregularities committed, namely non-compliance with provisions of sections 231 up to 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but to no avail due to the hostile attitude hel
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Court for want of prosecution be set aside. The learned judge while setting aside the dismissal order declined an application for leave to appeal without assigning any reasons.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Mangi v Munyiri & another Court of Appeal, at Nairobi August 1, 1991 Masime, Cockar & Muli JJ A Civil Appeal No 143 of 1990 (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court at Nairobi, Mr Justice Shields J, dated 9th November 1989 in HCCC No 1413 of 1989) Equity - equitable remedies - specific performance - matters the courts will consider in granting such remedy. Land Law - sale of land - rescission of an agreement for sale on account of the purchaser failing to complete the transaction
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: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1987 VIRGINIA EDITH WAMBUI OTIENO..…….………APPLICANT VERSUS JOASH OUGO & ANOTHER………….…......…RESPONDENT RULING.