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
2,481 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 2 June 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GITHINJI, MWILU & ODEK, JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 54 OF 2015 BETWEEN ABDI YUSUF MAALIM …………………………………………………………………….APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………………………..……… RESPONDENT (An appeal from the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, (Justice Muchemi) dated 19th December, 2013 in H.
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Appeal 860 of 2004 BLUESHIELD INSURANCE CO. LTD……...…APPELLANT VERSUS SAMUEL NYAGA NGURUKIRI…..…………..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T 1.
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made can only apply to the court which made the order to set it aside.”. This court, in its more recent decision in the case of Michael Miana and K.
High Court at NairobiHeCase number Criminal Revision 43 of 1992
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Case
then ordered that the said occupants be summoned to appear before it to show cause why a closing order should not be made. The affected tenants duly appeared before the Court including an employee of the applicant known as Harrison Mulwa.
Court of Appeal at NairobiEngland,JUDGE APPEALCase number Criminal Application 4 of 1994
Division and case type: Criminal·Case number Criminal Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Cockar, Omolo, Tunoi JJ A ) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NAI. 4 OF 1994 BETWEEN REPUBLIC.................................................................................APPLICANT AND 1.
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.
Division and case type: Criminal·Case number Criminal Application
Imanyara v Republic High Court, at Nairobi May 9, 1991 Porter J Criminal Application No 190 of 1991 Criminal Practice and Procedure – bail –renewed application for bail – whether a rehearing of a previous bail application . Criminal Practice and Procedure – bail – whether an applicant is entitled to apply for bail as many times as he can – section 123(3) Criminal Procedure Code.
Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,HeCase number Civil Appeal 38 of 1986
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
power to make nor was there any appeal from the order for possession for reconstruction. The time to consider whether there was to be a true reconstruction was when the Tribunal made its order of February 9, 1976.
High Court at NairobiEnglandCase number Civil Case 590 of 1988
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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.
High Court at NairobiHeCase number Civil Case 1271 of 1979
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE No. 1271 OF 1979 SYAN..................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS SUNSET HOTEL LTD...................................RESPONDENT
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)
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.
What, today, is the correct approach of a court to an application for summary judgment under order XXXV rule 1 where there is a claim on a note and the defence is a set-off or counterclaim? Should the payment due on it be held up until the trial of the set-off or counterclaim has been heard?