We use strictly necessary cookies to run the site. With your consent we also use performance cookies to understand how the site is used. Read the cookie policy.
Court decisions & case law | Wakili Link
Case law
Search court decisions
2,883 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 2 June 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:A.B. SHAH) CIVIL APPEAL 149 OF 1991 BETWEEN JOSEPHOCHIENG PHILIPKAFUANDE HENRY HEGGA (Trading as AQUILINE AGENCIES)…....................APPELLANTS VERSUS FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO.................
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: KWACH, OMOLO & TUNOI, JJ.A) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 71 OF 1995 BETWEEN LAWRENCE ITUBE NGANGA PATRICK KINUTHIA NGANGA ..........................
Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,JusticeCase number Criminal Appeal 64 of 1994
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 64 OF 1994 FESTUS WANJOHI GITHENDU………………….................................. …………………..APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC………………………................................……………………..
Court of Appeal at NakuruJUDGE APPEAL,JusticeCase number Criminal Appeal 50 of 1994
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPEAL 50 OF 1994 DANIEL KAMAU NGANGA……………………..........................………..……………APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC……………………………….......................……………………..……..RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nakuru (Mr. Rimita) dated 21/4/94 IN H.C.CR.A.
Court of Appeal at NairobiJustice,JUDGE APPEALCase number Civil Appeal 55 of 1986
Division and case type: Civil·Civil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi,Cockar & Omolo JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 1986 BETWEEN NGORORO...............................................................................APPELLANT AND NDUTHA & ANOTHER.....................................................RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi of the Chief Justice the Honourable Mr Justice Simpson delivered on 9th August, 1985) in HCCC No 3350 of 1984) *********************************
High Court at NairobiHeCase number Criminal Revision 43 of 1992
Division and case type: Criminal·Criminal 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: Criminal·Case 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.
Court of Appeal at NairobiJUDGE APPEAL,HeCase number Civil Appeal 38 of 1986
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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.
High Court at NairobiHeCase number Civil Case 1271 of 1979
Division and case type: Civil·Civil 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-Corruption·Miscellaneous 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.
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?