Judgment[2012] KEHC 706
ABDULLAH MANGI MOHAMED v LAZARUS BEJA & 5 OTHERS
High Court at Mombasa
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 COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA PEAL AT NYERI Civil Appeal 251 of 1996 1. JOSEPHAT MWANGI…………….................................……………………….APPELLANTS AND RUTH W.
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: CivilCivil Appeal
prospective petitioner is to strictly adhere to and observe the rules prescribed in the procedure in order to be able to enjoy the rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution. So if the petitioner has failed to meet any obligation which happens to be of a mandatory nature then it will equally defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the Act if the breach of the mandatory obligation is viewed with a blind eye.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
That evidence so far as it was adduced by the respondent fell foul of the requirements of rule 5 of Order 75: it failed to establish that the appellant was “the relevant “person”. The upshot of that is that the High Court did not have admiralty jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Nyarangi, Gachuhi & Apaloo JJA ) CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 1984 BETWEEN CHEGE KIMOTHO & OTHERS............................................ APPELLANT AND MARIA VESTERS & ANOTHER.................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from Judgment/Decree of the High Court at Nairobi, Cockar J)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Kitavi v Cosatal Bottlers Limited Court of Appeal, at Mombasa September 10, 1985 Kneller, Hancox & Nyarangi JJA Civil Appeal No 69 of 1984 (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) Cases 1. Paris v Stephey Borough Council (No 2) [1951] 1 AER 42 2.
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.