Judgment[2007] KEHC 1414
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 316 OF 1997 (From Original conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 18 of 1985 KIVANDI MUKUSYA……………………………………………..........…….APPELLANT VERSUS MUTUNGA MATHEKA…………………..…………………......………..RESPONDENT (From Original Civil Appeal L. 115 of 1978 o Senior Resident Magistrate at Machakos) Coram: J.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 767 OF 1987 CITY SERVICE STATION……............….……….. APPLICANT VERSUS JAMRECK PETER NJUGUNA …...………...… RESPONDENT RULING This is an application by the defendant in the suit that the ex-parte judgment entered against him on 25/2/88 be set aside on the grounds that he was never served with summons to enter appearance and that he does not owe the plaintiff the sum claimed.