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
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 116 OF 1993 GURDARSHAN SINGH ………………………..APPELLANT VERSUS C.K.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO.53 OF 1993 MAJOR JOSEPH MWETERI IGWETA.............................APPELLANT VERSUS 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...........................................................RESPONDENTS (Being an appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Shields) dated 25th October, 1990 in H.C.C.A.
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 NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 1993 BETWEEN CARTER & SONS LTD...................................................................APPELLANT AND 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 109 OF 1995 BETWEEN KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD ...............................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & AKIWUMI, JJ.A. NAI.70 OF 1996 BETWEEN MWANZI ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED…..……………..APPLICANT AND MAINA MUCHIRI GILBERT ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED……………..RESPONDENTS (Application for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr.
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
Macharia v Mungai (Civil Appeal 85 of 1990) [1995] KECA 165 (KLR) (18 October 1995) (Judgment) G.K. Macharia & another v Lucy N.
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: Anti-CorruptionCivil Appeal
company and that the respondents would hold the Deed Plan, when released, to the Order of the Acceptances. As this letter is also relevant in the negotiations, I reproduce it’s contents hereunder:- “East African Acceptances Ltd Stanbank House Nairobi Dear Sirs, Galot Industries Ltd Purchase of LR Nos 1337 and 1338/2.
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 apply to the Court which made the order to set it aside. The Court of Appeal in England in the case of Cozens v North Devon Hospital Management Committee [1966] 2 All ER 799, held that althought it was a general principle in regard to ex parte orders that the party affected by the order could apply for it to be discharged, yet it would be contrary to the intention of the Limitatio