Judgment[1994] KECA 69
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
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: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: PLATT, APALOO JJA & MASIME Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 67 OF 1985 SECURICOR (KENYA) LIMITED…….......…………………….APPLICANT VERSUS EA DRAPERS LIMITED …………………….……….....1ST DEFENDANT COMBINED WAREHOUSES LIMITED…..……….…..1ST DEFENDANT (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) RULING The applicant Securicor (K) Limited, gave notice on October 21 1986 that it would move the court for an order that leave be granted to the applicant, to amend the applicant’s
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Kitavi v Cosatal Bottlers Limited Court of Appeal, at Mombasa September 10, 1985 Kneller, Hancox & Nyarangi JJA Civil Appeal No 69 of 1984 (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) Cases 1. Paris v Stephey Borough Council (No 2) [1951] 1 AER 42 2.
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: CivilCivil Case
Parliament at the next or any subsequent session. They therefore became invalid and detention orders made became null and void ab initio.