Judgment[1990] KECA 32
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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: 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 Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller, Nyarangi, JJ A and Gachuhi, Ag J A) CIVIL APPEAL 5 OF 1984 BETWEEN BAKSHISH SINGH & BROTHERS ………….………...............…………….. APPELLANTS AND PANAFRIC HOTELS LIMITED ………..…………….....................…………..
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: CivilMiscellaneous Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Kneller JA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO NAI 33 OF 1984 BETWEEN GEOFFREY NDUNG’U THEURI ……………APPLICANT AND LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA…………………..RESPONDENT (In an intended appeal from the High Court at Nairobi, Porter J) RULING Geoffrey Ndung’u Theuri, the applicant, by an ex parte motion on notice filed by July 31, 1984 under rule 112 of the Court of Appeal Rules (cap 9), moves that the court by orders directs that his intended appeal may be lodged without prior payment
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?
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
ORDER Mr Khanna, for the appellants, by a motion on notice of February 2, 1984, expressed to be brought under rules 42 and 96 of the Court of Appeal Rules, asks this court to substitute as a party to the appeal in place of the late second appellant, Ajit Gurbaksh Singh, either Harbans Kaur, the widow, or one or both of the named executors of the deceased’s will who are Amrik Singh Gurbaksh Singh and Joginder Singh Gurbaksh Singh, the third and fifth appellants, and the hearing of the appeal