Judgment[2021] KEHC 1012
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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 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: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 444 OF 2000 JACINTA WANGARI KAMAU ………………………….
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
pursuant to the appellate powers of that court. The section does not expressly state that all such orders shall be appealable to this Court.
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: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION NO 13 OF 1991 JOHN OPIYO ARUNGA..........................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC...........................................RESPONDENT REVISION This is an application for a revision under sections 362, 364, 365 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application has been filed by M/s Gumba Onywera & Company Advocates for the applicant John Opiyo Arunga and it arises out of a Miscellaneous Criminal Application No 12 of
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 61 OF 1989 Kangethe..........................................................appellant v Republic......................................................respondent Judgment. The appellant in this case was charged before the chief magistrate’s court Nairobi, in two counts with stealing by clerk contrary to section 281 of the Penal Code.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
statement made by the appellant to the police and which he gave to the court for perusal.At the conclusion of Mr Chunga’s outline of the facts the appellant then said:- “I agree all the facts.” He was then convicted of the offence and later sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. In passing sentence the learned Chief Magistrate stated that he had taken into consideration what the appellant had stated in mitigation as well as the contents of the appellant’s statement made to the police.
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: Anti-CorruptionMiscellaneous Criminal Application
tends as a direction to the Court hearing the application for Order of Prohibition to grant the Order without using its own discretion whether it should do so. The Attorney-General did not need any authority, nor a reminder, that in the light of the opinions expressed by the Constitutional Court he could terminate the proceedings even when coupled with a wet hope that he would do so.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Kioga v Republic Court of Appeal, at Nyeri May 20, 1985 Simpson CJ, Nyarangi JA & Gachuhi Ag JA Criminal Appeal No 163 of 1984 (Appeal from the High Court at Nyeri, VV Patel J) May 20, 1985, Simpson CJ, Nyarangi JA & Gachuhi Ag JA delivered the following Judgment. On May 14, 1982 the appellant was charged before the senior resident magistrate, Meru with the offence of willfully and unlawfully damaging property contrary to section 339(1) of the Penal Code (cap 63).
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Parliament at the next or any subsequent session. They therefore became invalid and detention orders made became null and void ab initio.
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?