Court decisions & case law

Judgment[1998] KEHC 601 November 1998

STEPHEN C. MWANGI v REPUBLIC

High Court at MombasaBwonwonga,NgCase number Criminal Appeal 66 of 1998

Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 66 of 1998 STEPHEN C. MWANGI..........................................................................

11 min read

Judgment[1998] KEHC 681 November 1998

STEPHEN C. MWANGI v REPUBLIC

High Court at MombasaBwonwongaCase number Criminal Appeal 68 of 1998

Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 66 of 1998 STEPHEN C. MWANGI..........................................................................

11 min read

Judgment[1992] KEHC 7930 August 1992

Ngwoa v Republic

High Court at MombasaMethoCriminal Appeal No. 478 of 1991

Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal

quash the conviction recorded against him, set aside the sentence and orders imposed on him and order that he be released from prison forthwith unless otherwise lawfully held.

1 min read

Judgment[1992] KEHC 973 May 1992

Ali v Republic

High Court at MombasaMethoCase number Criminal Appeal 13 of 1992

Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal

REPUBLIC OF KENYA Ali v Republic High Court, at Mombasa May 4, 1992 Omolo J Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 1992 May 4, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Judgment.

3 min read

Judgment[1992] KEHC 962 March 1992

Thuo v Republic

High Court at MombasaMethoCriminal Appeal No. 18 of 1992

Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal

REPUBLIC OF KENYA Thuo v Republic High Court, at Mombasa March 3, 1992 Omolo J Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1992 March 3, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Judgment.

1 min read

Judgment[1989] KECA 4816 November 1989

Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil

Court of Appeal at MombasaAct,Bosire,JUDGE APPEAL,Inamdar,Alexander,Satchu,Kariuki,Saliarelis,Tsakiris,PLSCivil Appeal 50 of 1989

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.

Judgment[1985] KEHC 1247 February 1985

Ngeyma v Akamba Public Service

High Court at MombasaHis,AllCase number Civil Case 1034 of 1983

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

Ngeyma v Akamba Public Service High Court, at Mombasa February 8, 1985 Mandari J Civil Case No 1034 of 1983 Cases Benham Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] 64 TLR 177 Firozali Noormchmed Haji v Elias Kapomba Toka C A 46/80 (unreported) Reckless V P C Allday & Co Ltd & another, 9 – 018. Advocates Anjarwalla for plaintiff Juma for defendants February 8, 1985, Mandari J delivered the following Judgment.

11 min read

Judgment[1985] KEHC 427 February 1985

Ngeyma v Akamba Public Service

High Court at MombasaHis,AllCivil Case No 1034 of 1983

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

Ngeyma v Akamba Public Service High Court, at Mombasa February 8, 1985 Mandari J Civil Case No 1034 of 1983 Cases Benham Carter v Hyde Park Hotel Ltd [1948] 64 TLR 177 Firozali Noormchmed Haji v Elias Kapomba Toka C A 46/80 (unreported) Reckless V P C Allday & Co Ltd & another, 9 – 018. Advocates Anjarwalla for plaintiff Juma for defendants February 8, 1985, Mandari J delivered the following Judgment.

11 min read

Judgment[1984] KEHC 548 December 1984

JOSEPH KARISA MUTSONGA v JOHNSON NYATI

High Court at MombasaSheridan,Judge Mombasa,Joseph,Macharia Muhuni Mr,Macharia Muhuni,Kupalia,Jayantilal Shah,CuthbertCase number Civil Suit 295 of 1976

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.