Court decisions & case law

Judgment[2019] KEHC 48618 December 2019

PMK v Inspector General of Police, Director of Criminal Investigations & Attorney General

High Court at Machakos

Judgment[1989] KECA 4816 November 1989

Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S" v Caltex Oil

Court of Appeal at MombasaAct,Bosire,JUDGE APPEAL,Inamdar,Alexander,Satchu,Kariuki,Saliarelis,Tsakiris,PLSCivil Appeal 50 of 1989

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.

Appeal allowedAllowed77 min read

Judgment[1988] KECA 5810 May 1988

Okong'o v Attorney-General & another

Court of Appeal at Kisumujudge High Court,Act,JUDGE APPEAL,WasunaCase number Civil Appeal 170 of 1986

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

Appeal refusedDismissed8 min read

Judgment[1984] KECA 428 June 1984

Choge & 3 others v Republic

Court of Appeal at NairobiJudge Assessors,Judge Assessors Mr,Judge did direct Assessors,judge find Musamali,judge rely Dr,judge could rely upon Dr,JUDGE APPEAL,Etyang,Kapila,Kibuthu,Witte,Musyoka Annan,Kariuki,Kibithu,Gathua Dr,Patel Dr Gathua,Njenga,Okoko,Muliro,Elgon Studio,Patel Dr,Musyoka,Kapila compared Baraza,Patel found Peter,Okoko Inspector Munyole,Etyang invited Court,Tuwei,Kapila made regarding Okumu,Otieno,Etyang stated Musamali,Kantilal Patel Dr,Gathua examined Musamali,Patel,MusyokaAnnanCase number Criminal Appeal 69 of 1984

Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal

Parliament until 1979, when he lost his seat; who would pay them Kshs 36,000 for carrying out that order which was described as ‘the work’. If the prosecution case was accepted there could be no question but that Charles and the second appellant were to be armed with guns when they went to arrest Tenai.

77 min read