Judgment[2005] KEHC 142
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsMiscellaneous Application
factors or to omit to consider relevant factors, and according to the Advocates Remuneration Order itself, some of the relevant factors to take into account include the nature and importance of the course or matter, the amount or value of the subject matter involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings and any direction by the trial judge." In this case, the applicant has faulted the taxing officer for failing to take into account the sum which was awarded by t
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Application
is Order VI rule 13(1) and an order under that provision is also equally appealable as of right under Order XLII rule 1. I am, therefore, satisfied that an appeal does lie in the instant case without leave from the decision of the Judge which is sought to be appealed against.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller, Nyarangi, JJ A and Gachuhi, Ag J A) CIVIL APPEAL 5 OF 1984 BETWEEN BAKSHISH SINGH & BROTHERS ………….………...............…………….. APPELLANTS AND PANAFRIC HOTELS LIMITED ………..…………….....................…………..
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Kneller JA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO NAI 33 OF 1984 BETWEEN GEOFFREY NDUNG’U THEURI ……………APPLICANT AND LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA…………………..RESPONDENT (In an intended appeal from the High Court at Nairobi, Porter J) RULING Geoffrey Ndung’u Theuri, the applicant, by an ex parte motion on notice filed by July 31, 1984 under rule 112 of the Court of Appeal Rules (cap 9), moves that the court by orders directs that his intended appeal may be lodged without prior payment
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
ORDER Mr Khanna, for the appellants, by a motion on notice of February 2, 1984, expressed to be brought under rules 42 and 96 of the Court of Appeal Rules, asks this court to substitute as a party to the appeal in place of the late second appellant, Ajit Gurbaksh Singh, either Harbans Kaur, the widow, or one or both of the named executors of the deceased’s will who are Amrik Singh Gurbaksh Singh and Joginder Singh Gurbaksh Singh, the third and fifth appellants, and the hearing of the appeal