Judgment[1994] KECA 93
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi,Cockar & Omolo JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 1986 BETWEEN NGORORO...............................................................................APPELLANT AND NDUTHA & ANOTHER.....................................................RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi of the Chief Justice the Honourable Mr Justice Simpson delivered on 9th August, 1985) in HCCC No 3350 of 1984) *********************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Apaloo CJ, Kwach, Cockar, Omolo & Tunoi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 145 OF 1990 TROUISTIK UNION INTERNATIONAL INGRID URSULA HEINZ …………………….….… APPELLANTS VERSUS JANE MBEYU ALICE MBEYU ………………………………..….. RESPONDENTS (Appeal from a Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Mr Justice Bosire) dated 17th October, 1989 in HCCC No 172 of 1987)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Farrah v Kenya Ports Authority Court of Appeal, at Mombasa ` March 16, 1992 Hancox CJ, Gachuhi, Cockar JJ A Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1991 March 16, 1992, Hancox CJ, delivered the following Judgment.
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
accused persons for trial his Court had become functus officio and could not make any further order thereon. While hearing this constitutional issue, it was submitted before us that after the magistrate committed the accused persons for trial to the High Court counsel tried to draw the learned Chief Magistrate’s attention to the irregularities committed, namely non-compliance with provisions of sections 231 up to 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but to no avail due to the hostile attitude hel
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
That evidence so far as it was adduced by the respondent fell foul of the requirements of rule 5 of Order 75: it failed to establish that the appellant was “the relevant “person”. The upshot of that is that the High Court did not have admiralty jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1987 VIRGINIA EDITH WAMBUI OTIENO..…….………APPLICANT VERSUS JOASH OUGO & ANOTHER………….…......…RESPONDENT RULING.