Judgment[2023] KEELC 22457
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and LandPetition
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION COURT MARTIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL 5 Of 2016. 87058 SPTE ALLAN OMONDI ANYANGA................APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, MWILU & ODEK, JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2015 BETWEEN ABDI YUSUF MAALIM …………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………………………..……… RESPONDENT (An appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, (Justice Muchemi) dated 19th December, 2013 in H.
Division and case type: CivilCase number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA COURT OF APPEAL IN KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPLICATION 323 OF 2009 CFC FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED................................APPLICANT AND JUJA ROAD FANCY STORE LIMITED............................RESPONDENT (An application for extension of time within which to lodge the record of appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon. Lady Justice Khaminwa) dated 6th February 2009 in H.C.C.C.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
that the learned trial Judge improperly exercised his discretion in declining to set aside his order dismissing the appellants case and the ex parte judgement. In the result we allow the appeal, set aside both the ex parte order of dismissal and he ex parte judgement on the counterclaim and order that the claim and the counterclaim do proceed to hearing in the superior court.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made can only apply to the court which made the order to set it aside.”. This court, in its more recent decision in the case of Michael Miana and K.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: SHAH, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: GACHUHI, OMOLO & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 1995 BETWEEN BAMBURI PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: GACHUHI, OMOLO & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 1995 BETWEEN BAMBURI PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
statement made by the appellant to the police and which he gave to the court for perusal.At the conclusion of Mr Chunga’s outline of the facts the appellant then said:- “I agree all the facts.” He was then convicted of the offence and later sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. In passing sentence the learned Chief Magistrate stated that he had taken into consideration what the appellant had stated in mitigation as well as the contents of the appellant’s statement made to the police.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Apaloo, Masime JJA & Gicheru Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 12 OF 1987 BETWEEN CHEGE.......................................................... APPELLANT AND SULEIMAN...................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal against the ruling of the High Court at Nairobi, Kwach CA) RULING July 13, 1988, Apaloo, Masime JJA & Gicheru Ag JA delivered the following Ruling.
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
Madede & another v Fita & 2 others (Civil Appeal 4 of 1986) [1988] KECA 108 (KLR) (12 April 1988) (Judgment) Madede & another v Ainea Fita & 2 others [1988] eKLR Neutral citation: [1988] KECA 108 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL 4 OF 1986 JO NYARANGI, JM GACHUHI & FK APALOO, JJA APRIL 12, 1988 BETWEEN MADEDE & ANOTHER & ANOTHER ............................................... APPELLANT AND AINEA FITA ............................................................
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: 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.