Judgment[2008] KEHC 253
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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 Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS Civil Case 5189 of 1991 JOSEPH NJUGUNA............................................ …………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS CYRUS NJATHI....................................................
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: 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?