Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Mombasa Constitutional Petition 59 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION BY ABDULLAH MANGI MOHAMED CHALLENGING INFRINGEMENT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE ISSUE, EXISTENCE AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF TITLE DEED HELD BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10TH JANUARY 2006 OVER PLOT NO. 539 SECTION III MAINLAND NORTH BETWEEN ABDULLAH M
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 64 of 1995 CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY TABLIGH FLYSABULLAHI MARKAZ SELF HELP GROUP..APPELLANTS VERSUS DAVID MOTUKU NZAU …………….................................................................……...…..…… RESPONDENT Corum: J. Nzei Advocate for Appellant/Applicant Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS Civil Appeal 64 of 1995 CHAIRMAN & SECRETARY TABLIGH FLYSABULLAHI MARKAZ SELF HELP GROUP..APPELLANTS VERSUS DAVID MOTUKU NZAU …………….................................................................……...…..…… RESPONDENT Corum: J. Nzei Advocate for Appellant/Applicant Mr.
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: CivilCivil Appeal
Maweu v Kiu Ranching & Farming Cooperative Society Ltd Court of Appeal, at Nairobi September 4, 1985 Hancox, Nyarangi JJA & Platt Ag JA Civil Appeal No 2 of 1983 (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court at Nairobi, Porter J) Cases 1. Mwangi Githu v Livingstone Ndeete & Others, Court of Appeal No 4 of 1979 Referred 2.
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.