Judgment[1991] KEHC 17
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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
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: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO.3923 OF 1985 KIGIKA DEVELOPERS LIMITED.........................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS NAIROBI CITY COMMISSION...........................................................DEFENDANT RULING This matter originally came before me on an application to strike out the defence. I struck out the defence but as the action was somewhat unusual I refused to give judgment, but directed that the case be set down for
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: KNELLER, HANCOX & NYARANGI JJA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 177 OF 1984 BETWEEN KARIUKI & ANOTHER .................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC......................................
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?