Judgment[1988] KEHC 40
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 3432 OF 1988 JOSEPH MUTHUSI & 2 OTHERS…………………… APPLICANTS VERSUS WILLIAM GATHOGO & 2 OTHERS …………......... RESPONDENTS RULING This is an application by way of Chamber Summons for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from conducting elections until the determination of this suit.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
In objecting to an application filed by Mr. Mwihia on behalf of the applicant seeking for several orders namely:- “(a) That the decree be amended to conform with the Judgment of this court; (b) That the annexed decree be approved as the decree of this court; (c) That the plaintiff be allowed to nominate his mother Raphaela Njeri Paul Njagi as the transferee of the suit land; (d) That the Deputy Registrar be authorized to sign the transfer documents to effect the registration of Raphaela Njeri Pa
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 590 OF 1988 ALPHONCE ANDALO & ANOTHER t/a Highspeed General Supplies ……………………. APPLICANT VERSUS JAMES GLEEN RUSSEL LTD………......................…...RESPONDENT RULING The Notice of Motion application which came for hearing was filed in court on 23rd March 1988.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, PLATT & GACHUHI JJA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 18 OF 1987 OTIENO……………………………… APPLICANT VERSUS OUGO & ANOTHER….…………..RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution pending an appeal in the High Court at Nairobi, Bosire J)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1987 VIRGINIA EDITH WAMBUI OTIENO..…….………APPLICANT VERSUS JOASH OUGO & ANOTHER………….…......…RESPONDENT RULING.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
unreasonable to hold that the mere possession of the pistol on this date is sufficient to found a conclusion that the appellant participated in the robbery. Neither the trial magistrate nor the High Court pinpointed the evidence they considered cogent enough to justify the conclusion that the 1st appellant participated in the robbery.