Judgment[2001] KECA 323
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
in the submission that the finding in fact has no evidence to support it, we have come to the conclusion that there is evidence on record capable of being taken into consideration to sustain the charge. There was overwhelming evidence of P.W.1., P.W.4 and P.W.5.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA 1 Barry Scutt & Another v Hitesh Jethwa & 2 Others High Court of Kenya at Nairobi June 29, 2000 Milimani Commercial Courts T Mbaluto, Judge Civil Case No 937 of 2000 June 29, 2000 T Mbaluto, Judge delivered the following ruling. This ruling relates to the issue as to who between the applicants who are the plaintiffs in this suit and the 3rd defendant/respondent should bear the costs of the application filed by the plaintiffs herein.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, SHAH & BOSIRE JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 1999 BETWEEN FRED KIPCHUMBA CHEPKWONY...............................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC....................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and judgment of the High Court of Kenya in Embu (Mr.
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Application
is Order VI rule 13(1) and an order under that provision is also equally appealable as of right under Order XLII rule 1. I am, therefore, satisfied that an appeal does lie in the instant case without leave from the decision of the Judge which is sought to be appealed against.
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1994 BETWEEN ELIZABETH NGELELE JOHN MULI MUNYAO KIOKO MBULA SAA MUSYOKA KILONZO.....................................................APPELLANTS AND REPUBLIC................................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) dated 8th December, 1993 in H.C.CR.C.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeals numbered
& Pall JJ.A) on the 22nd day of May, 1997 as, in both the appeals, the date on the copy of the orders appealed against did not coincide with the date of the order and as the order appealed against appeared to have been certified on a date subsequent to the filing of the appeal. For record purposes the applicant in both applications before me is the same party, that is, Machakos Ranching Company Limited but the respondents are different.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 182 OF 1994 MACHAKOS DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED……….........APPELLANT AND PHILIP NZUKI KIILU…………………....................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Honourable Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA, JJ.A & BOSIRE Ag. 34 OF 1996 BETWEEN BONIFACE MUSYOKA NDOLO..........................................APPELLANT AND PAULINE KATONGE MUSAU…………….........................SPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) delivered on 29th November, 1995 IN H.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA, JJ.A & BOSIRE Ag. 34 OF 1996 BETWEEN BONIFACE MUSYOKA NDOLO..........................................APPELLANT AND PAULINE KATONGE MUSAU…………….........................SPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) delivered on 29th November, 1995 IN H.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, LAKHA JJ.A & BOSIRE AG. 5 of 1995 BETWEEN MR MUTEMI SHADRACK K.
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 Appeal
as if their action had been begun by filing a plaint. According to him, the provisions of rule 10 of order XXXVI of the Rules had been brought to the attention of the judge and since a claim by adverse possession must only be brought through an Originating Summons, if the issues therein were disputed, the superior court should have dealt with the matter as if the same had been begun by filing a plaint.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: GICHERU, KWACH & TUNOI) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 1992 BETWEEN HERMAN AMBONYA ODONGO......................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC...................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Kakamega (Justice Osiemo) dated 14th October, 1992 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT KISUMU Criminal Appeal 7 of 1991 JOSHUA LIYAYI MUSUNGU ……….....……….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ………..………………………….… RESPONDENT (Appeal from a sentence of the High Court of Kenya Kakamega (Mr Justice Osiemo) dated 15th October, 1990, In H.C.CR.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
I agree with the judgment of Nyarangi JA. The appeal will be allowed with the orders proposed by him.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Parliament until 1979, when he lost his seat; who would pay them Kshs 36,000 for carrying out that order which was described as ‘the work’. If the prosecution case was accepted there could be no question but that Charles and the second appellant were to be armed with guns when they went to arrest Tenai.