Judgment[2007] KEHC 1332
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
Plaintiffs case when she observed that the Plaintiffs had not shown a prima facie case that the orders sought in their plaint could be granted. On the basis of a letter by Kodak Company in which Kodak
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
Plaintiffs case when she observed that the Plaintiffs had not shown a prima facie case that the orders sought in their plaint could be granted. On the basis of a letter by Kodak Company in which Kodak
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
decision of Lakha, J.A., a learned single judge of this Court, to seek to vary, discharge or reverse his order by the Court under the provisions of rule 54 (2) of the Rules. Oraro has submitted that the respondent having not chosen any of those options he cannot now challenge the consent order which he has not attempted to have set aside.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Consequently, the respondent asked for judgment against the appellant in the form of an eviction order and the costs, and interest on the costs, for having to bring this into court. The appellant claims that the same land was registered in the name of Mukui Kamau who allowed the appellant entry upon it in 1964 (which is twelve years before the respondent says the appellant trespassed on this land) and the appellant goes on to say that he has lived on it ever since, put up a house on it and plant