Judgment[2021] KEHC 1012
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Revision
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal (Appli) 164 of 2005 ABDULSHAKOOR KHANDWALLA…………APPLICANT/RESPONDENT AND EAST AFRICAN BUILDING SOCIETY……..RESPONDENT/APPELLANT (Application to strike out record of appeal in an appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Maraga J) dated 11th June, 2004 in H.C.C.C. 30 OF 1994) ******************** RULING OF THE COURT This is an application under Rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules (Rules) for
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: GACHUHI, OMOLO & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 1995 BETWEEN BAMBURI PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: GACHUHI, OMOLO & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 1995 BETWEEN BAMBURI PORTLAND CEMENT CO.
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: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI HIGH COURT CIVIL CASE NO. 17 OF 1993 MURITHI KAGUNDU ……………………………………….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 649 OF 1991 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION...........................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS CONTAINER FREIGHTERS CO LTD................................RESPONDENT RULING This application for summary judgment is brought by way of a notice of motion under order 35 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks an order that summary judgment be entered for the plaintiff, Agricultural Development Corporat
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 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.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE No. 1271 OF 1979 SYAN..................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS SUNSET HOTEL LTD...................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
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?