Court decisions & case law

Judgment[2000] KEHC 20320 July 2000

Judgment[1999] KEHC 6714 December 1999

MOSES MWANGI MUCHINA v AFRICAN LINE TRANSPORT CO. LTD & ANOTHER

High Court at MachakosKiragu Gill,Kibore,Kiragu,BencivengaCase number Civil Case 108 of 1997

Division and case type: CivilCivil Case

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Case 108 of 1997 MOSES MWANGI MUCHINA …………….……………......….. AFRICAN LINE TRANSPORT CO.

suit is dismissedDismissed10 min read

Judgment[1989] KECA 695 February 1989

Muthike v Kenya Film Corporation Ltd

Court of Appeal at NairobiCockar setting aside Mr,Cockar,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 7 of 1988

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Platt Ja, Gachuhi & Kwach Ag JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 7 OF 1988 MUTHIKE........................................................APPELLANT VERSUS KENYA FILM CORPORATION LTD...............RESPONDENT

10 min read

Judgment[1986] KECA 3527 October 1986

James Nduhiu Macharia v Mwotia Macharia

Court of Appeal at NyeriTodd High,Cockar Nyeri,Cockar August,TODD,Todd led Nduhiu,JS Patel,Cockar,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 105 of 1985

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NYERI (CORAM: KNELLER, NYARANGI JJA & GACHUHI Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 1985 JAMES NDUHIU MACHARIA ……...…………….……APPELLANT VERSUS MWOTIA MACHARIA ……………………..……….RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Ruling and Order at the High Court at Nyeri, Patel J)

appeal is allowedAllowed12 min read

Judgment[1985] KECA 13726 February 1985

Meru Express Ser v ices

Court of Appeal at NairobiCockar,judge did make Lubia,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 21 of 1984

Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Hancox JA, Chesoni & Platt Ag JJA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 34 OF 1982 KEMFRO AFRICA LIMITED T/A “MERU EXPRESS SERVICES (1976)” & ANOTHER …………….…..…………….APPLICANT VERSUS OLIVE LUBIA & ANOTHER ………….....…..RESPONDENT RULING When this appeal was called on for hearing, Mr Kwach, appearing on behalf of the two respondents, took the preliminary objection that the mandatory provisions of Rule 85 (1) (f) of rules of this court had not been complied with, in that none o

3 min read