Judgment[2021] KEHC 907
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Commercial and TaxCase number Winding Up Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Suit 379 of 2004 ANTHONY AMBAKA KEGODE ……….............................……………..1ST PLAINTIFF UHAI LIMITED………………………….............................………………2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS FOUR NINETY INVESTMENT LIMITED…….............................…..1ST DEFENDANT ADAM GRAIG OGDEN …………..……………..........................……2ND DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN SAFARI AIR LIMITED………..........................….3RD DEFENDANT EAST AFRICAN
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: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2004 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
stated that the owner of the lorry to show cause why maize and lorry should not be forfeited, that order did not preclude the owner of the maize to appear if he was not the owner of the lorry, and claim his maize. The appellants aware of that order as it was made in their presence at the sitting in which the court had convicted them and during the continuation of the same proceedings as it is apparent from the Court record of the proceedings of that day.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 95 OF 1987 MULANDI………,……………….………APPELLANT V REPUBLIC…………………………………..RESPONDENT
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL APPLICATION NO. 6 OF 1983 JAMES ODEMBA OTIENO...............................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC.......................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from Conviction and Sentence of the Court Martial at 7th Kenya Rifles Langata Barracks, Nairobi)