Judgment[1989] KEHC 78
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
statement made by the appellant to the police and which he gave to the court for perusal.At the conclusion of Mr Chunga’s outline of the facts the appellant then said:- “I agree all the facts.” He was then convicted of the offence and later sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. In passing sentence the learned Chief Magistrate stated that he had taken into consideration what the appellant had stated in mitigation as well as the contents of the appellant’s statement made to the police.
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionMiscellaneous 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.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Kioga v Republic Court of Appeal, at Nyeri May 20, 1985 Simpson CJ, Nyarangi JA & Gachuhi Ag JA Criminal Appeal No 163 of 1984 (Appeal from the High Court at Nyeri, VV Patel J) May 20, 1985, Simpson CJ, Nyarangi JA & Gachuhi Ag JA delivered the following Judgment. On May 14, 1982 the appellant was charged before the senior resident magistrate, Meru with the offence of willfully and unlawfully damaging property contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal Code (cap 63).
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
and Mr Jayantilal Shah of that firm took over his defence. He applied on October 11, 1982 for an order that his firm should cease to act for the defendant because it could get no further instructions in the suit from the defendant which the defendant said he had not alternative but to accept and it was all right if the firm did not wish to represent him.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Parliament at the next or any subsequent session. They therefore became invalid and detention orders made became null and void ab initio.