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: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Cockar, Omolo, Tunoi JJ A ) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NAI. 4 OF 1994 BETWEEN REPUBLIC.................................................................................APPLICANT AND 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
There was no evidence of service of the order 2. Neither the order nor the notice of motion nor any other notice in connection therewith that was served carried an indorsement of penal obligation or consequence.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Apaloo CJ, Kwach, Cockar, Omolo & Tunoi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 145 OF 1990 TROUISTIK UNION INTERNATIONAL INGRID URSULA HEINZ …………………….….… APPELLANTS VERSUS JANE MBEYU ALICE MBEYU ………………………………..….. RESPONDENTS (Appeal from a Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Mr Justice Bosire) dated 17th October, 1989 in HCCC No 172 of 1987)
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
accused persons for trial his Court had become functus officio and could not make any further order thereon. While hearing this constitutional issue, it was submitted before us that after the magistrate committed the accused persons for trial to the High Court counsel tried to draw the learned Chief Magistrate’s attention to the irregularities committed, namely non-compliance with provisions of sections 231 up to 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but to no avail due to the hostile attitude hel
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 Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 590 OF 1988 ALPHONCE ANDALO & ANOTHER t/a Highspeed General Supplies ……………………. APPLICANT VERSUS JAMES GLEEN RUSSEL LTD………......................…...RESPONDENT RULING The Notice of Motion application which came for hearing was filed in court on 23rd March 1988.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, PLATT & GACHUHI JJA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 18 OF 1987 OTIENO……………………………… APPLICANT VERSUS OUGO & ANOTHER….…………..RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution pending an appeal in the High Court at Nairobi, Bosire J)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1987 VIRGINIA EDITH WAMBUI OTIENO..…….………APPLICANT VERSUS JOASH OUGO & ANOTHER………….…......…RESPONDENT RULING.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
unreasonable to hold that the mere possession of the pistol on this date is sufficient to found a conclusion that the appellant participated in the robbery. Neither the trial magistrate nor the High Court pinpointed the evidence they considered cogent enough to justify the conclusion that the 1st appellant participated in the robbery.
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionMiscellaneous Criminal Application
tends as a direction to the Court hearing the application for Order of Prohibition to grant the Order without using its own discretion whether it should do so. The Attorney-General did not need any authority, nor a reminder, that in the light of the opinions expressed by the Constitutional Court he could terminate the proceedings even when coupled with a wet hope that he would do so.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Parliament at the next or any subsequent session. They therefore became invalid and detention orders made became null and void ab initio.