BRITAM INSUARANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS GEOFREY AJIKI
Division and case type: High Court DivCivil Suit
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: High Court DivConstitution and Human Rights Petition (Civil)
Division and case type: High Court DivCivil Suit
Division and case type: High Court DivCivil Appeal
Division and case type: High Court DivFamily P&A Intestate
Division and case type: High Court DivFamily P&A Intestate
Division and case type: High Court DivFamily P&A Intestate
Division and case type: High Court DivFamily P&A Citation
Division and case type: High Court DivCivil Case Miscellaneous
Division and case type: High Court DivCivil Suit
Division and case type: High Court DivCommercial Insolvency Cause
Division and case type: High Court DivCommercial Insolvency Cause
Division and case type: High Court DivCivil Appeal
Division and case type: High Court DivCivil Appeal
Division and case type: High Court DivCivil Appeal
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsJudicial Review
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
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 59 of 2006 JACKSON NZARO……………………………………………………….APPELLANT VERSUS KAVITA BHATT……………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T This is an appeal against the decision of the Principal Magistrate given on the 30th March 2006 allowing the Respondent’s applications dated 17th March 2006 and 15th March 2006 in Mombasa CMCC Numbers 817 of 2006 and 993 of 2006 respectively which had been consolidated.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
decision of Lakha, J.A., a learned single judge of this Court, to seek to vary, discharge or reverse his order by the Court under the provisions of rule 54 (2) of the Rules. Oraro has submitted that the respondent having not chosen any of those options he cannot now challenge the consent order which he has not attempted to have set aside.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OWUOR, J.A (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 62/99) BETWEEN MOSES KIPNGETICH KURGAT ..............................APPLICANT AND THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE LAW SOCIETY ...................................RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution in an intended appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OMOLO, SHAH & PALL, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 1997 BETWEEN SAMUEL NGURE GATHII.......................................APPELLANT AND JOSEPHINE WANJIRU MBUGUA................................RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: TUNOI, SHAH & PALL, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 1997 BETWEEN KENYA CEMENT MARKETING LIMITED............................................APPELLANT AND JAMES G.K.