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.
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
Abdirahman & another v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT GARISSA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E012 OF 2025 MN GICHERU, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010; IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10(1) & (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 47, 50(1), 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68,
Court of Appeal at NairobiEtyang,JUDGE APPEALCase number Criminal Appeal 129 of 2001
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal 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.
Court of Appeal at NairobiEtyang,JUDGE APPEALCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 30 OF 2000
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal 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.
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.
Court of Appeal at NairobiEtyang,JUDGE APPEAL,BandulaCase number Criminal Miscellaneous Application 289 of 1997
Division and case type: Criminal·Miscellaneous 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.
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.
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 KisumuOsiemo,JUDGE APPEALCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 1992
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: GICHERU, KWACH & TUNOI) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 1992 BETWEEN HERMAN AMBONYA ODONGO......................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC...................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Kakamega (Justice Osiemo) dated 14th October, 1992 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Court of Appeal at KisumuOsiemo,JUDGE APPEALCase number Criminal Appeal 7 of 1991
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT KISUMU Criminal Appeal 7 of 1991 JOSHUA LIYAYI MUSUNGU ……….....……….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ………..………………………….… RESPONDENT (Appeal from a sentence of the High Court of Kenya Kakamega (Mr Justice Osiemo) dated 15th October, 1990, In H.C.CR.
Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,HeCase number Civil Appeal 38 of 1986
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
power to make nor was there any appeal from the order for possession for reconstruction. The time to consider whether there was to be a true reconstruction was when the Tribunal made its order of February 9, 1976.
What, today, is the correct approach of a court to an application for summary judgment under order XXXV rule 1 where there is a claim on a note and the defence is a set-off or counterclaim? Should the payment due on it be held up until the trial of the set-off or counterclaim has been heard?
Parliament until 1979, when he lost his seat; who would pay them Kshs 36,000 for carrying out that order which was described as ‘the work’. If the prosecution case was accepted there could be no question but that Charles and the second appellant were to be armed with guns when they went to arrest Tenai.