Court decisions & case law

Judgment[2005] KEHC 74326 December 2005

Ernest Mwalua Lombo v Republic

High Court at Mombasa

Judgment[1999] KEHC 6818 July 1999

CONTINENTAL DEVELOPERS LTD v SAUTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

High Court at NairobiGatonye,Rachi,GatonyesCase number Civil Case 933 of 1996

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 933 of 1996 CONTINENTAL DEVELOPERS LTD............................................................. PLAINTIFF VERSUS SAUTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD................................

2 min read

Judgment[1998] KEHC 11030 September 1998

CONTINENTAL DEVELOPERS LTD v SAUTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

High Court at Nairobime on,Mitambo,Gatonye,Ogano,Rachi,Rachi applicant Mr,Rachi Applicant,Kariuki,Mitambo Defendant,Mitambo We,Gatonye says Co,Gatonye They,Gatonye Give,Rachu,Rao,Gatonye last Friday,Gatonye serve Mr,Muruthi,Koyoko,MitiamboCase number Civil Case 933 of 1996

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

application succeedsAllowed2 min read

Judgment[1998] KEHC 17930 September 1998

CONTINENTAL DEVELOPERS LTD v SAUTI HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY

High Court at Nairobiit was fully paid on condition that out of theloan of shs,Gatonye,Mitambo,Ogano,Rachi,Rachi applicant Mr,Rachi Applicant,Kariuki,Kariuki Mr,Mitambo Defendant,Mitambo We,Gatonye says Co,Rachi proceed Mr,Gatonye They,Gatonye Give,Rachu,Rao,Gatonye last Friday,Rachi We,Rao If,Gatonye serve Mr,Rao absent Mr,Muruthi,Koyoko,MitiamboCivil Case 933 of 1996

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

application succeedsAllowed2 min read

Judgment[1984] KEHC 548 December 1984

JOSEPH KARISA MUTSONGA v JOHNSON NYATI

High Court at MombasaSheridan,Judge Mombasa,Joseph,Macharia Muhuni Mr,Macharia Muhuni,Kupalia,Jayantilal Shah,CuthbertCase number Civil Suit 295 of 1976

Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit

and Mr Jayantilal Shah of that firm took over his defence. He applied on October 11, 1982 for an order that his firm should cease to act for the defendant because it could get no further instructions in the suit from the defendant which the defendant said he had not alternative but to accept and it was all right if the firm did not wish to represent him.

26 min read