Judgment[2022] KEELC 15592
Muturi v Kimuyu
Environment and Land Court at Muranga
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and LandMiscellaneous Application
that the wires were naked before he rented the premises and that the child had to be standing in order to touch the wires. The Respondent did not call any witness and the medical reports were produced by consent of both parties.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
Gikandi argues that he is able to show that it is jurisdictionally possible for conservatory orders to be granted despite the envisaged time-lines in Section 32 of the Act.This is the very subject of his application. In view of the restricted time in Section 32, the application by the Petitioners is made even more urgent.Once more urgent a person alleges contravention of his fundamental rights and freedoms under Section 70 – 83 of the Constitution this court as a Constitutional court must stop i
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) Prob & Admin Cause 172 of 1988 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GATUTHU NJUGUNA (DECEASED) Issue: Whether, under the Law of Succession Act, the Registrar of the High Court has power to perform the duties and carry out responsibilities of an executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased person. RULING I do not intend to write a long ruling.
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: 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
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