Judgment[2023] KEELC 22457
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and LandPetition
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION COURT MARTIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL 5 Of 2016. 87058 SPTE ALLAN OMONDI ANYANGA................APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
Co-Operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shiraz Shabudin Sayani t/a Makupa AGIP Service Station (Civil Suit 23 of 1999) [1999] KEHC 170 (KLR) (19 April 1999) (Ruling) Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shiraz Shabudin Sayani t/a Makupa Agip Service Station [1999] eKLR Neutral citation: [1999] KEHC 170 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT 23 OF 1999 PN WAKI, J APRIL 19, 1999 BETWEEN CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LTD .............................................. PLAINTIFF AND SHIRAZ
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: 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: CivilCivil Case
Parliament at the next or any subsequent session. They therefore became invalid and detention orders made became null and void ab initio.