Judgment[2023] KEHC 26694
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
Gikandi argues that he is able to show that it is jurisdictionally possible for conservatory orders to be granted despite the envisaged time-lines in Section 32 of the Act.This is the very subject of his application. In view of the restricted time in Section 32, the application by the Petitioners is made even more urgent.Once more urgent a person alleges contravention of his fundamental rights and freedoms under Section 70 – 83 of the Constitution this court as a Constitutional court must stop i
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: CivilCivil Suit
Co-Operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shiraz Shabudin Sayani t/a Makupa AGIP Service Station (Civil Suit 23 of 1999) [1999] KEHC 170 (KLR) (19 April 1999) (Ruling) Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shiraz Shabudin Sayani t/a Makupa Agip Service Station [1999] eKLR Neutral citation: [1999] KEHC 170 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT 23 OF 1999 PN WAKI, J APRIL 19, 1999 BETWEEN CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LTD .............................................. PLAINTIFF AND SHIRAZ
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appli
both only saythat appeal lies to the Court of Appeal as of right from adecision of the High Court on order given under prerogativeorders. The application is supported by the affidavit of JonahKip Ngeno, a State Counsel in Mombasa sworn on 24-9-98.
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: 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.