Judgment[2009] KEHC 11
Kimani & 2 others v Attorney General & 2 others
High Court at Mombasa
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISC. 494 OF 2003 DOMINIC ARONY AMOLO……………………….……..……..PLAINTIFF V E R S U S THE HON.
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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 120 OF 1996 KIATHI TRADING CO.
Division and case type: CivilORIGINATING SUMMONS
The respondents swear that they were prepared to accept the applicants papers if they were in order despite the order from the Chief Magistrate, Nakuru if the same were presented within the prescribed time. No attempt was made to present the papers within the prescribed time.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
The respondents swear that they were prepared to accept the applicants papers if they were in order despite the order from the Chief Magistrate, Nakuru if the same were presented within the prescribed time. No attempt was made to present the papers within the prescribed time.
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.