Judgment[2019] KEHC 486
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, PALL, JJ.A. & BOSIRE, AG.J.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: SHAH, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: TUNOI, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: Commercial and TaxInsolvency Cause
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, MASIME & COCKAR JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 111 OF 1990 PAUL JOSEPH NGEI …………………...…… APPELLANT VERSUS OFFICIAL RECEIVER……………..….……. RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Ruling and Order of the High Court at Nairobi (Akiwumi J) dated 14th June 1990 in High Court Bankruptcy Cause No 14 of 1988)
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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (Coram: Platt, Apaloo JJA & Masime Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 1986 BETWEEN OKONG’O...........................................................................APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOTHER..............................RESPONDENT
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.