Judgment[1997] KECA 310
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: PALL J.A (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 372 OF 1996 BETWEEN DAVID KONGO .......................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
I make no finding on theactions of Sebastian as his case abated upon his death pendingconclusion of the trial. The case against Mwakalamu KISHUSHU has not been proved beyondreasonable doubt and I find him not guilty.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
I make no finding on theactions of Sebastian as his case abated upon his death pendingconclusion of the trial. The case against Mwakalamu KISHUSHU has not been proved beyondreasonable doubt and I find him not guilty.
Division and case type: CivilCase number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civil Appli 372 of 1996 DAVID KONGO ……………………………………………………... APPLICANT AND NJOROGE NJUGUNA ………………………...………………..
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
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: PALL J.A (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 372 OF 1996 BETWEEN DAVID KONGO .......................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, GACHUHI & APALOO JJA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 22 OF 1987 MWANGI …………………….APPELLANTS VERSUS REPUBLIC…………….……RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: NYARANGI, GACHUHI & APALOO JJA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 139 OF 1986 NJAU …………………….APPELLANTS VERSUS REPUBLIC…………….……RESPONDENT
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: CivilMiscellaneous Application
Esso Standard Kenya Ltd v Onesmus Kihara Mwangi Court of Appeal, at Nairobi June 5, 1985 Hancox JA, Platt & Gachuhi Ag JJA Civil Application No NAI 29 of 1984 (Application from the High Court at Nairobi, Nyarangi J) Appeal – delay in filing–– letter to Registrar requesting for precedings not copied to respondent – Rule 81 (2) Court of Appeal Rules. Nyarangi J as he then was on July 18, 1980 gave judgment in favour of the Esso Standard Kenya (no plaintiff) the defendant filed notice of appeal o
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
Esso Standard Kenya Ltd v Onesmus Kihara Mwangi Court of Appeal, at Nairobi June 5, 1985 Hancox JA, Platt & Gachuhi Ag JJA Civil Application No NAI 29 of 1984 (Application from the High Court at Nairobi, Nyarangi J) Appeal – delay in filing–– letter to Registrar requesting for precedings not copied to respondent – Rule 81 (2) Court of Appeal Rules. Nyarangi J as he then was on July 18, 1980 gave judgment in favour of the Esso Standard Kenya (no plaintiff) the defendant filed notice of appeal o
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.