Judgment[2019] KEELC 65
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and LandLand Case
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: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MISC. 494 OF 2003 DOMINIC ARONY AMOLO……………………….……..……..PLAINTIFF V E R S U S THE HON.
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: AKIWUMI, SHAH & BOSIRE, JJ.A) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 224 OF 1999 BETWEEN JASWANT SINGH DHINGRA ..............................APPLICANT AND JASWINDER DHINGRA ..................................RESPONDENT (An application to strike out Notice of Appeal filed herein on 18th day of December, 1998 in an intended appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OMOLO, TUNOI & LAKHA, JJ.A.) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 1998 BETWEEN DAIMA BANK LIMITED ...............................1ST APPELLANT KANGETHE & COMPANY ...............................2ND APPELLANT WHITESTONE AUCTIONEERS (K) LIMITED ...............3RD APPELLANT AND K.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: OWUOR, J.A (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 62/99) BETWEEN MOSES KIPNGETICH KURGAT ..............................APPLICANT AND THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE LAW SOCIETY ...................................RESPONDENT (Application for stay of execution in an intended appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon.
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: 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
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made can only apply to the court which made the order to set it aside.”. This court, in its more recent decision in the case of Michael Miana and K.
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: LAKHA, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS) (CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 120 OF 1996 KIATHI TRADING CO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 38 OF 1995 PATRICK CAMPBELL MANYUIRA……….……..APPELLANT AND ANN MUTHONI PERTET…………………………….RESPONDENT (Appeal from an order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 154 & 155 of 1996 JACKLINE MUENI NZIOKA…..…………………….................................... ……………...APPELLANT AND JETHAT RAMJI KERAI……………………................................……………………… RESPONDENT (Appeal from judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Lady Justice Ang’awa) dated 23rd May, 1996 IN H.C.C.C.
Division and case type: CivilORIGINATING SUMMONS
The respondents swear that they were prepared to accept the applicants papers if they were in order despite the order from the Chief Magistrate, Nakuru if the same were presented within the prescribed time. No attempt was made to present the papers within the prescribed time.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
The respondents swear that they were prepared to accept the applicants papers if they were in order despite the order from the Chief Magistrate, Nakuru if the same were presented within the prescribed time. No attempt was made to present the papers within the prescribed time.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
matter than the appellate tribunal can be; and the appellate tribunal will generally defer to the conclusion which the trial judge has formed”. LORD WRIGHT, in the course of his speech at p.265, said: “Two principles are beyond controversy.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Gachuhi, Akiwumi & Lakha JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO 116 OF 1987 Between FRANCIS WAINAINA ....................................................APPELLANT AND KENYA COMMERCIAL FINANCE CO. LTD...............RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Lady Justice Aluoch) dated 25th day of February, 1987 in HCCC No 2539 of 1981) ********************* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appellant won a contract to supply Kenya Breweries with
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi, Omolo & Akiwumi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. KARIUKI ……………….................................…………….……………….APPELLANT AND HON.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
as if their action had been begun by filing a plaint. According to him, the provisions of rule 10 of order XXXVI of the Rules had been brought to the attention of the judge and since a claim by adverse possession must only be brought through an Originating Summons, if the issues therein were disputed, the superior court should have dealt with the matter as if the same had been begun by filing a plaint.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
When the application came before Aluoch J ex parte on 25th April 1994, she declined to grant the orders sought by the Mayor and directed that all the defendants be served as the matter was of some general public interest. She adjourned the application to 26th April 1994 for hearing inter partes.