Judgment[1995] KECA 2
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
was not a party to the suit in the superior court; and the learned trial judge’s error in making orders regarding the burial of the deceased which were incapable of performance. In regard to the foregoing grounds of appeal, counsel for the appellants, Miss Abida Ali who appeared with Miss Betty Murungi, submitted that the fact that the deceased became apostate did not dissolve his marriage to the rst appellant as there was no evidence that that fact was communicated to her.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi, Cockar & Muli JJ A ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1993 BETWEEN DANIEL WACHIRA MUNENE.........................................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC.....................................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr Justice JA Mango) dated 23rd December 1992, in Criminal Case No 7 of 1992) ***********************************
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Ekaita v Republic (Criminal Appeal 25 of 1994) [1994] KECA 107 (KLR) (23 June 1994) (Judgment) Nebart Ekaita v Republic [1994] eKLR Neutral citation: [1994] KECA 107 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CRIMINAL APPEAL 25 OF 1994 JM GACHUHI, JE GICHERU & RSC OMOLO, JJA JUNE 23, 1994 BETWEEN NEBART EKAITA .................................................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ..................................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Nzuki v Republic High Court, at Mombasa May 11, 1992 Wambilyangah J Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1992 May 11, 1992, Wambilyanga J delivered the following Judgment.
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 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?