Judgment[1999] KEHC 14
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 MILIMANI LAW COURTS Civil Case 5189 of 1991 JOSEPH NJUGUNA............................................ …………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS CYRUS NJATHI....................................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 316 OF 1997 (From Original conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 10 OF 1994 BETWEEN ELIZABETH NGELELE JOHN MULI MUNYAO KIOKO MBULA SAA MUSYOKA KILONZO.....................................................APPELLANTS AND REPUBLIC................................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) dated 8th December, 1993 in H.C.CR.C.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA PEAL AT NYERI Civil Appeal 251 of 1996 1. JOSEPHAT MWANGI…………….................................……………………….APPELLANTS AND RUTH W.
Division and case type: CivilCivil 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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 182 OF 1994 MACHAKOS DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE UNION LIMITED……….........APPELLANT AND PHILIP NZUKI KIILU…………………....................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Honourable Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA, JJ.A & BOSIRE Ag. 34 OF 1996 BETWEEN BONIFACE MUSYOKA NDOLO..........................................APPELLANT AND PAULINE KATONGE MUSAU…………….........................SPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) delivered on 29th November, 1995 IN H.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, LAKHA, JJ.A & BOSIRE Ag. 34 OF 1996 BETWEEN BONIFACE MUSYOKA NDOLO..........................................APPELLANT AND PAULINE KATONGE MUSAU…………….........................SPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Machakos (Justice Osiemo) delivered on 29th November, 1995 IN H.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, LAKHA JJ.A & BOSIRE AG. 5 of 1995 BETWEEN MR MUTEMI SHADRACK K.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 18 of 1985 KIVANDI MUKUSYA……………………………………………..........…….APPELLANT VERSUS MUTUNGA MATHEKA…………………..…………………......………..RESPONDENT (From Original Civil Appeal L. 115 of 1978 o Senior Resident Magistrate at Machakos) Coram: J.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 154 & 155 of 1996 JACKLINE MUENI NZIOKA…..…………………….................................... ……………...APPELLANT AND JETHAT RAMJI KERAI……………………................................……………………… RESPONDENT (Appeal from judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Lady Justice Ang’awa) dated 23rd May, 1996 IN H.C.C.C.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: GICHERU, KWACH & TUNOI) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 108 OF 1992 BETWEEN HERMAN AMBONYA ODONGO......................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC...................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Kakamega (Justice Osiemo) dated 14th October, 1992 in CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
prospective petitioner is to strictly adhere to and observe the rules prescribed in the procedure in order to be able to enjoy the rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution. So if the petitioner has failed to meet any obligation which happens to be of a mandatory nature then it will equally defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the Act if the breach of the mandatory obligation is viewed with a blind eye.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT KISUMU Criminal Appeal 7 of 1991 JOSHUA LIYAYI MUSUNGU ……….....……….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ………..………………………….… RESPONDENT (Appeal from a sentence of the High Court of Kenya Kakamega (Mr Justice Osiemo) dated 15th October, 1990, In H.C.CR.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Farrah v Kenya Ports Authority Court of Appeal, at Mombasa ` March 16, 1992 Hancox CJ, Gachuhi, Cockar JJ A Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1991 March 16, 1992, Hancox CJ, delivered the following Judgment.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
That evidence so far as it was adduced by the respondent fell foul of the requirements of rule 5 of Order 75: it failed to establish that the appellant was “the relevant “person”. The upshot of that is that the High Court did not have admiralty jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Nyarangi, Gachuhi & Apaloo JJA ) CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 1984 BETWEEN CHEGE KIMOTHO & OTHERS............................................ APPELLANT AND MARIA VESTERS & ANOTHER.................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from Judgment/Decree of the High Court at Nairobi, Cockar J)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: PLATT, APALOO JJA & MASIME Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 67 OF 1985 SECURICOR (KENYA) LIMITED…….......…………………….APPLICANT VERSUS EA DRAPERS LIMITED …………………….……….....1ST DEFENDANT COMBINED WAREHOUSES LIMITED…..……….…..1ST DEFENDANT (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) RULING The applicant Securicor (K) Limited, gave notice on October 21 1986 that it would move the court for an order that leave be granted to the applicant, to amend the applicant’s
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 3490 OF 1987 M A……………………………………..…………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS HILTON INTERNATIONAL (K) LTD …........….….1ST DEFENDANT M A……………………………………..….…..….2ND DEFENDANT RULING Mrs M A, the plaintiff in this case, is a very angry woman.