Judgment[2019] KEHC 486
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 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionPetition
Order Ruling duly read ISAAC LENAOLA JUDGE By Consent Application dated 12th August 2015 is granted as prayed but Senator Johnstone Muthama is enjoined as an Interested Party and shall file Submissions within 7 days on matters affecting him only. Submissions to be highlighted on 12th January 2016.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 417 OF 2002 JACOB MATHENGE NJOGU……………….…………..APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………………..RESPONDENT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 141 OF 2002 ALEX MWANGI NJAU……………….………………….APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………………………………RESPONDENT AND HIGH COURT CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
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
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 KISUMU (Coram: Platt, Apaloo JJA & Masime Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 1986 BETWEEN OKONG’O...........................................................................APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOTHER..............................RESPONDENT