Judgment[2022] KEHC 16911
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Alukhaba v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal E007 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) (23 December 2022) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA CRIMINAL APPEAL E007 OF 2021 WM MUSYOKA, J DECEMBER 23, 2022 BETWEEN JOHN ALUKHABA ................................................................................. APPELLANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ....................................
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAROK CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2016 [Being an appeal from the Judgment and Sentence dated 6/5/2016 in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Narok in Criminal Case No 291/2015, R.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 39 of 2005 JAYNTILAL DHAMSHI GOSRANI ……………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS KENYA OIL COMPANY LTD.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI Civil Case 29 of 2007 FRIDAH NYAGUTHII MUNENE…………......…….PLAINTIFF Versus PETER MURIITHI KINGAU....…………........1ST DEFENDANT BERNARD KARERU KAROKI…………..….2ND DEFENDANT PHYLIS WANJIRA KANGANGI……….……3RD DEFENDANT J U D G M E N T This is a suit instituted by way of an amended plaint dated 23rd May, 2007 and filed in court on the same day through Messrs Rika & Co. In that amended plaint, Frida Nyaguthii Munene, hereinafter referred
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: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE 33 OF 2008 REPUBLIC versus MWANIA KITHOME RULING 1. That objection taken to the proceedings herein is dated 12.7.2008 and reads as follows:- “i.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 59 of 2006 JACKSON NZARO……………………………………………………….APPELLANT VERSUS KAVITA BHATT……………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T This is an appeal against the decision of the Principal Magistrate given on the 30th March 2006 allowing the Respondent’s applications dated 17th March 2006 and 15th March 2006 in Mombasa CMCC Numbers 817 of 2006 and 993 of 2006 respectively which had been consolidated.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE FRANCIS AGANDA ………………………………………………APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………RESPONDENT Consolidated With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2001 STEPHEN MALIOLO ……………………………………………..APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 116 OF 1993 GURDARSHAN SINGH ………………………..APPELLANT VERSUS C.K.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO.53 OF 1993 MAJOR JOSEPH MWETERI IGWETA.............................APPELLANT VERSUS 1. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL...........................................................RESPONDENTS (Being an appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Justice Shields) dated 25th October, 1990 in H.C.C.A.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 62 OF 1993 BETWEEN CARTER & SONS LTD...................................................................APPELLANT AND 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, TUNOI & SHAH, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL (APPLICATION) NO. 109 OF 1995 BETWEEN KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD ...............................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & AKIWUMI, JJ.A. NAI.70 OF 1996 BETWEEN MWANZI ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED…..……………..APPLICANT AND MAINA MUCHIRI GILBERT ROAD PROPERTIES LIMITED……………..RESPONDENTS (Application for a stay of execution of the judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Macharia v Mungai (Civil Appeal 85 of 1990) [1995] KECA 165 (KLR) (18 October 1995) (Judgment) G.K. Macharia & another v Lucy N.
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: Anti-CorruptionCivil Appeal
company and that the respondents would hold the Deed Plan, when released, to the Order of the Acceptances. As this letter is also relevant in the negotiations, I reproduce it’s contents hereunder:- “East African Acceptances Ltd Stanbank House Nairobi Dear Sirs, Galot Industries Ltd Purchase of LR Nos 1337 and 1338/2.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made, can apply to the Court which made the order to set it aside. The Court of Appeal in England in the case of Cozens v North Devon Hospital Management Committee [1966] 2 All ER 799, held that althought it was a general principle in regard to ex parte orders that the party affected by the order could apply for it to be discharged, yet it would be contrary to the intention of the Limitatio
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Court for want of prosecution be set aside. The learned judge while setting aside the dismissal order declined an application for leave to appeal without assigning any reasons.