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.
Court decisions & case law | Wakili Link
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
High Court at NairobiNemakonde,Kamande,ItCase number Petition 188 of 2012
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
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: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
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.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OMOLO, TUNOI & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 1998 BETWEEN DAIMA BANK LIMITED ...............................1ST APPELLANT KANGETHE & COMPANY ...............................2ND APPELLANT WHITESTONE AUCTIONEERS (K) LIMITED ...............3RD APPELLANT AND K.
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made can only apply to the court which made the order to set it aside.”. This court, in its more recent decision in the case of Michael Miana and K.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 38 OF 1995 PATRICK CAMPBELL MANYUIRA……….……..APPELLANT AND ANN MUTHONI PERTET…………………………….RESPONDENT (Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr.
Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,It,KonosiCase number Civil Appeal 166 of 1995
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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.
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: Anti-Corruption·Miscellaneous 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.