Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Commercial and TaxInsolvency Cause
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, MASIME & COCKAR JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 111 OF 1990 PAUL JOSEPH NGEI …………………...…… APPELLANT VERSUS OFFICIAL RECEIVER……………..….……. RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Ruling and Order of the High Court at Nairobi (Akiwumi J) dated 14th June 1990 in High Court Bankruptcy Cause No 14 of 1988)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Kinji Ltd & Another v Kogo & Another High Court, at Mombasa March 31, 1992 Omolo J Civil Case No. 938 of 1991 March 31, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Ruling.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
Receiver comes, he has to move the creditors to allow him to sell his properties by private treaty in order to pay and get off the hook? Well that is left to him with his counsel.
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
Imanyara v Republic High Court, at Nairobi May 9, 1991 Porter J Criminal Application No 190 of 1991 Criminal Practice and Procedure – bail –renewed application for bail – whether a rehearing of a previous bail application . Criminal Practice and Procedure – bail – whether an applicant is entitled to apply for bail as many times as he can – section 123(3) Criminal Procedure Code.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
power to make nor was there any appeal from the order for possession for reconstruction. The time to consider whether there was to be a true reconstruction was when the Tribunal made its order of February 9, 1976.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE No. 1271 OF 1979 SYAN..................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS SUNSET HOTEL LTD...................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
What, today, is the correct approach of a court to an application for summary judgment under order XXXV rule 1 where there is a claim on a note and the defence is a set-off or counterclaim? Should the payment due on it be held up until the trial of the set-off or counterclaim has been heard?