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
2,883 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 2 June 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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 COURTSOF APPEAL AT NAIROBI civil misc appl 211 of 98 MACHARIA KARUGU I ......................................APPLICANT AND CHEGE MACHARIA .........................................RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time to file Notice and Record of Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Githinji) dated 13th October, 1997 in H.C.C.C. 379 OF 1986) ************* R U L I N G This is an application under rule 4 of the Rules of this Court
Division and case type: Civil·Case number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 1997 (89/97UR) BETWEEN MARGARET WANJIKU MWATHI ................................
Court of Appeal at NairobiGithinji,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 54 of 1994
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & PALL JJ.A) CIVIL APPEAL NO.54 OF 1994 BETWEEN GABRIEL NYANGATE.............................................APPELLANT AND KINENI FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMTED.......................................1ST RESPONDENT SAMWEL NYARUNDA................................2ND RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr Justice Githinji) dated 22nd May, 1992 MIS. NO.535 OF 1991) ********************
Court of Appeal at NairobiGithinji,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 35 of 1996
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, AKIWUMI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 1996 BETWEEN ELIJAH WAMBUGU MURIITHI……………..…………..…….APPELLANT AND MOSES MATHENGE MURIITHI) STEPHEN NDERITU MURIITHI)………………..………..….RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Githinji) dated 11th May, 1995 IN H.
When the application came before Aluoch J ex parte on 25th April 1994, she declined to grant the orders sought by the Mayor and directed that all the defendants be served as the matter was of some general public interest. She adjourned the application to 26th April 1994 for hearing inter partes.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
Receiver comes, he has to move the creditors to allow him to sell his properties by private treaty in order to pay and get off the hook? Well that is left to him with his counsel.
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.