Judgment[2023] KEHC 27351
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
Ogolla v Onyango Otunga & Company Advocates (Civil Appeal E101 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) (27 December 2023) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL E101 OF 2023 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 27, 2023 BETWEEN GEORGE OGOLLA .................................................................................. APPELLANT AND ONYANGO OTUNGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES ......................
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: Milimani Commercial CourtsUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Misc Appli 1670 of 2007 ABID ALI HASHIM……...………..……………….APPLICANT VERSUS ANTONY KIHONGE MUHIA …..……………RESPONDENT RULING Before me is a notice of motion filed pursuant to Section 18 (1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant seek an order of the court to transfer Nairobi CMCCC No.
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU HCCA NO. 72 OF 2004 A F ………………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS H A …………………………………..…………..
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
In absence of any indication my brother was correct in proceeding with he trial on 20.3.96 under order 9b CPR. From the evidence before the court the plaintiff stated that he boarded the defendants lorry.
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................................
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................................
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 Appeal
prospective petitioner is to strictly adhere to and observe the rules prescribed in the procedure in order to be able to enjoy the rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution. So if the petitioner has failed to meet any obligation which happens to be of a mandatory nature then it will equally defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the Act if the breach of the mandatory obligation is viewed with a blind eye.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS Civil Suit 3512 of 1990 PRUDENTIAL FINANCE LIMITED........................... PLAINTIFF VERSUS JOHNSON NGANGA MBUGUA............................DEFENDANT
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
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL 18 OF 89 Munga Concrete Works Ltd.......................appellant v Industrial Development Bank Ltd..............respondent Judgment. The background facts giving rise to this appeal can be stated briefly.
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
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Parliament until 1979, when he lost his seat; who would pay them Kshs 36,000 for carrying out that order which was described as ‘the work’. If the prosecution case was accepted there could be no question but that Charles and the second appellant were to be armed with guns when they went to arrest Tenai.
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?