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: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Mombasa Constitutional Petition 59 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION BY ABDULLAH MANGI MOHAMED CHALLENGING INFRINGEMENT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE ISSUE, EXISTENCE AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF TITLE DEED HELD BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10TH JANUARY 2006 OVER PLOT NO. 539 SECTION III MAINLAND NORTH BETWEEN ABDULLAH M
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 64 of 1995 CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY TABLIGH FLYSABULLAHI MARKAZ SELF HELP GROUP..APPELLANTS VERSUS DAVID MOTUKU NZAU …………….................................................................……...…..…… RESPONDENT Corum: J. Nzei Advocate for Appellant/Applicant Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 64 of 1995 CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY TABLIGH FLYSABULLAHI MARKAZ SELF HELP GROUP..APPELLANTS VERSUS DAVID MOTUKU NZAU …………….................................................................……...…..…… RESPONDENT Corum: J. Nzei Advocate for Appellant/Applicant Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:A.B. SHAH) CIVIL APPEAL 149 OF 1991 BETWEEN JOSEPHOCHIENG PHILIPKAFUANDE HENRY HEGGA (Trading as AQUILINE AGENCIES)…....................APPELLANTS VERSUS FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO.................
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 Appeal
Maweu v Kiu Ranching & Farming Cooperative Society Ltd Court of Appeal, at Nairobi September 4, 1985 Hancox, Nyarangi JJA & Platt Ag JA Civil Appeal No 2 of 1983 (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court at Nairobi, Porter J) Cases 1. Mwangi Githu v Livingstone Ndeete & Others, Court of Appeal No 4 of 1979 Referred 2.