Judgment[2019] KEHC 486
PMK v Inspector General of Police, Director of Criminal Investigations & Attorney General
High Court at Machakos
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 316 OF 1997 (From Original conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Criminal Appeal 629 of 1990 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 645 of 1986 of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru: I.C.C.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Criminal Appeal 629 of 1990 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No. 645 of 1986 of the Chief Magistrate's Court at Nakuru: I.C.C.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISII CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.170 OF 1996 (From original conviction and sentence of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Kisii in criminal case No.1303 of 1995). YUVENALIS MOTUKA MAGEKA ………………......................……..
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Cockar, Muli & Omolo JJ A) CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO NAI 5 OF 1993 MARK OWEGGI …………………..APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………..……RESPONDENT (Appeal from a ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr Justice Oguk) dated 28th September, 1993 in Misc Criminal Appl No 419 of 1993) RULING We are of the clear view that there is no merit in the application before us and it must accordingly fail. The applicant Mr Mark Oweggi is an advocate of the High Court of
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