KIVANDI MUKUSYA v MUTUNGA MATHEKA
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Full-text search is temporarily limited — results match titles and citations only.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Division and case type: CriminalCase 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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Division and case type: CivilCivil 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.