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: CivilCase number Civil Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: O’KUBASU, J.A. (IN CHAMBERS)) CIVIL APPLICATION NO.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.96 OF 1996 MARY MANGA MESHACK .............................. APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC .......................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 1997 BETWEEN 1. JAMES MUTHUI ............
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.34 OF 1997 BETWEEN 1. JAMES MUTHUI ............
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Court had analysed this evidence in depth, they would most probably have come to the same conclusion as we have. As a result of this, we consider the convictions of these three appellants to be unsafe and should not be allowed to stand.
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
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (Coram:Kneller, Hancox & Nyarangi JJA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 1986 BETWEEN MOHAMED MAHMOUD JABANE............................................................APPELLANT AND HIGHSTONE BUTTY TONGOI OLENJA................................................RESPONDENT JUDGMENT OF HANCOX JA.