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: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 59 of 2006 JACKSON NZARO……………………………………………………….APPELLANT VERSUS KAVITA BHATT……………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T This is an appeal against the decision of the Principal Magistrate given on the 30th March 2006 allowing the Respondent’s applications dated 17th March 2006 and 15th March 2006 in Mombasa CMCC Numbers 817 of 2006 and 993 of 2006 respectively which had been consolidated.
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