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
2,883 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 2 June 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.
High Court at Nyamirajudge High CourtCriminal Appeal E023 of 2022
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
Alukhaba v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal E007 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) (23 December 2022) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA CRIMINAL APPEAL E007 OF 2021 WM MUSYOKA, J DECEMBER 23, 2022 BETWEEN JOHN ALUKHABA ................................................................................. APPELLANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ....................................
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human Rights·Petition
I therefore find that the application for revision dated 29th July, 2020 is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The exparte orders granted on 30th July, 2020 staying the lower court proceedings are automatically vacated by the dismissal of the application.
Division and case type: CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS DIVISION·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KOOME, OKWENGU & KANTAI, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 2014 BETWEEN AGGREY CHITERI…………………….........................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC OF KENYA……....…..…………………..…RESPONDENT (An appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Majanja J.), dated 30th May, 2014 in High Court Petition No.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION COURT MARTIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL 5 Of 2016. 87058 SPTE ALLAN OMONDI ANYANGA................APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT.
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.
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.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO.53 OF 1993 MAJOR JOSEPH MWETERI IGWETA.............................APPELLANT VERSUS 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...........................................................RESPONDENTS (Being an appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Shields) dated 25th October, 1990 in H.C.C.A.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 1993 BETWEEN CARTER & SONS LTD...................................................................APPELLANT AND 1.
Court of Appeal at NairobiShields,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 109 of 1995
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 109 OF 1995 BETWEEN KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD ...............................
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & AKIWUMI, JJ.A. NAI.70 OF 1996 BETWEEN MWANZI ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED…..……………..APPLICANT AND MAINA MUCHIRI GILBERT ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED……………..RESPONDENTS (Application for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Gachuhi, Akiwumi & Lakha JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO 116 OF 1987 Between FRANCIS WAINAINA ....................................................APPELLANT AND KENYA COMMERCIAL FINANCE CO. LTD...............RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Lady Justice Aluoch) dated 25th day of February, 1987 in HCCC No 2539 of 1981) ********************* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appellant won a contract to supply Kenya Breweries with
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi, Omolo & Akiwumi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. KARIUKI ……………….................................…………….……………….APPELLANT AND HON.
Division and case type: Anti-Corruption·Civil Appeal
company and that the respondents would hold the Deed Plan, when released, to the Order of the Acceptances. As this letter is also relevant in the negotiations, I reproduce it’s contents hereunder:- “East African Acceptances Ltd Stanbank House Nairobi Dear Sirs, Galot Industries Ltd Purchase of LR Nos 1337 and 1338/2.
was not a party to the suit in the superior court; and the learned trial judge’s error in making orders regarding the burial of the deceased which were incapable of performance. In regard to the foregoing grounds of appeal, counsel for the appellants, Miss Abida Ali who appeared with Miss Betty Murungi, submitted that the fact that the deceased became apostate did not dissolve his marriage to the rst appellant as there was no evidence that that fact was communicated to her.