Judgment[1995] KECA 42
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 64 OF 1994 FESTUS WANJOHI GITHENDU………………….................................. …………………..APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC………………………................................……………………..
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPEAL 50 OF 1994 DANIEL KAMAU NGANGA……………………..........................………..……………APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC……………………………….......................……………………..……..RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Mr. Rimita) dated 21/4/94 IN H.C.CR.A.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi,Cockar & Omolo JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 1986 BETWEEN NGORORO...............................................................................APPELLANT AND NDUTHA & ANOTHER.....................................................RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi of the Chief Justice the Honourable Mr Justice Simpson delivered on 9th August, 1985) in HCCC No 3350 of 1984) *********************************
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: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 4549 OF 1987 BACHITTER SINGH CHASE …………..………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS BARCLAYS BANK OF KENYA LTD…..……..
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 Appeal
Kitavi v Cosatal Bottlers Limited Court of Appeal, at Mombasa September 10, 1985 Kneller, Hancox & Nyarangi JJA Civil Appeal No 69 of 1984 (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) Cases 1. Paris v Stephey Borough Council (No 2) [1951] 1 AER 42 2.