We use strictly necessary cookies to run the site. With your consent we also use performance cookies to understand how the site is used. Read the cookie policy.
Court decisions & case law | Wakili Link
Case law
Search court decisions
47,624 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 21 September 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and Land·Petition
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.
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: Milimani Commercial Courts·Civil Suit
conduct of the defendant’s representatives could not excuse the failure to comply with the unless order the pleading had property been struck out.” The general principle is that orders of the court must be obeyed and a litigant who deliberately and without proper excuse disobeys such an order is not allowed to proceed. Singh Gitau for the Respondent did not come to court to argue his client’s position.
decision of Lakha, J.A., a learned single judge of this Court, to seek to vary, discharge or reverse his order by the Court under the provisions of rule 54 (2) of the Rules. Oraro has submitted that the respondent having not chosen any of those options he cannot now challenge the consent order which he has not attempted to have set aside.
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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.