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
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, SHAH & BOSIRE, JJ.A) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 224 OF 1999 BETWEEN JASWANT SINGH DHINGRA ..............................APPLICANT AND JASWINDER DHINGRA ..................................RESPONDENT (An application to strike out Notice of Appeal filed herein on 18th day of December, 1998 in an intended appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURTSOF APPEAL AT NAIROBI civil misc appl 211 of 98 MACHARIA KARUGU I ......................................APPLICANT AND CHEGE MACHARIA .........................................RESPONDENT (Application for extension of time to file Notice and Record of Appeal from the Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Githinji) dated 13th October, 1997 in H.C.C.C. 379 OF 1986) ************* R U L I N G This is an application under rule 4 of the Rules of this Court
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.
Court of Appeal at NairobiOsiemo,JUDGE APPEALCase number Criminal Appeal 10 of 1994
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal 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.
High Court at NairobiOwuor,Oguk,OndariCase number Criminal Appeal 629 of 1990
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Criminal Appeal 629 of 1990 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 645 of 1986 of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru: I.C.C.
High Court at NairobiOwuor,Oguk,OndariCriminal Case No. 645 of 1986
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Criminal Appeal 629 of 1990 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 645 of 1986 of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru: I.C.C.
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.
Division and case type: Civil·Case number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 206 OF 1997 (89/97UR) BETWEEN MARGARET WANJIKU MWATHI ................................
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.
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.
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.
Court of Appeal at NairobiGithinji,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 54 of 1994
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & PALL JJ.A) CIVIL APPEAL NO.54 OF 1994 BETWEEN GABRIEL NYANGATE.............................................APPELLANT AND KINENI FARMERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMTED.......................................1ST RESPONDENT SAMWEL NYARUNDA................................2ND RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr Justice Githinji) dated 22nd May, 1992 MIS. NO.535 OF 1991) ********************
Court of Appeal at NairobiGithinji,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 35 of 1996
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, AKIWUMI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 1996 BETWEEN ELIJAH WAMBUGU MURIITHI……………..…………..…….APPELLANT AND MOSES MATHENGE MURIITHI) STEPHEN NDERITU MURIITHI)………………..………..….RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Githinji) dated 11th May, 1995 IN H.
matter than the appellate tribunal can be; and the appellate tribunal will generally defer to the conclusion which the trial judge has formed”. LORD WRIGHT, in the course of his speech at p.265, said: “Two principles are beyond controversy.
as if their action had been begun by filing a plaint. According to him, the provisions of rule 10 of order XXXVI of the Rules had been brought to the attention of the judge and since a claim by adverse possession must only be brought through an Originating Summons, if the issues therein were disputed, the superior court should have dealt with the matter as if the same had been begun by filing a plaint.
When the application came before Aluoch J ex parte on 25th April 1994, she declined to grant the orders sought by the Mayor and directed that all the defendants be served as the matter was of some general public interest. She adjourned the application to 26th April 1994 for hearing inter partes.
There was no evidence of service of the order 2. Neither the order nor the notice of motion nor any other notice in connection therewith that was served carried an indorsement of penal obligation or consequence.