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 NyeriMwangi,RikaCase number Civil Case 29 of 2007
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI Civil Case 29 of 2007 FRIDAH NYAGUTHII MUNENE…………......…….PLAINTIFF Versus PETER MURIITHI KINGAU....…………........1ST DEFENDANT BERNARD KARERU KAROKI…………..….2ND DEFENDANT PHYLIS WANJIRA KANGANGI……….……3RD DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T This is a suit instituted by way of an amended plaint dated 23rd May, 2007 and filed in court on the same day through Messrs Rika & Co. In that amended plaint, Frida Nyaguthii Munene, hereinafter referred
High Court at MombasaSergon,Mwangi,NdegwaCase number Civil Appeal 59 of 2006
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 59 of 2006 JACKSON NZARO……………………………………………………….APPELLANT VERSUS KAVITA BHATT……………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T This is an appeal against the decision of the Principal Magistrate given on the 30th March 2006 allowing the Respondent’s applications dated 17th March 2006 and 15th March 2006 in Mombasa CMCC Numbers 817 of 2006 and 993 of 2006 respectively which had been consolidated.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE FRANCIS AGANDA ………………………………………………APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………RESPONDENT Consolidated With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2001 STEPHEN MALIOLO ……………………………………………..APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………….
High Court at MombasaItCase number Civil Suit 249 of 1995
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 249 of 1995 KHIMJI'S SECONDHAND MART....................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS TABURA SECURITY AGENCY (K).............................DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T On the 3rd of April, 1995 a plaint was filed in the MombasaHigh Court of Kenya District Registry. The Plaintiff wasdescribed as Kimji's Secondhand Mart - a business firm trading atMombasa.
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
High Court at MombasaHis,AllCase number Civil Case 1034 of 1983
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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.
High Court at MombasaHis,AllCivil Case No 1034 of 1983
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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.
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.