Judgment[1999] KECA 139
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
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: CivilCase 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 ................................
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: LAKHA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: LAKHA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) (CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
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: CivilCivil 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) ********************
Division and case type: CivilCivil 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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: KWACH, 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: CivilCivil Appeal
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: 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: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
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: 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.