Judgment[1995] KECA 46
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPEAL 50 OF 1994 DANIEL KAMAU NGANGA……………………..........................………..……………APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC……………………………….......................……………………..……..RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Mr. Rimita) dated 21/4/94 IN H.C.CR.A.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi,Cockar & Omolo JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 1986 BETWEEN NGORORO...............................................................................APPELLANT AND NDUTHA & ANOTHER.....................................................RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi of the Chief Justice the Honourable Mr Justice Simpson delivered on 9th August, 1985) in HCCC No 3350 of 1984) *********************************
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.
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.
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.