Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 36 OF 2008 ADBULHAKIM MOHAMED HASSAN HUSSEIN..............APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Ombija, J.) dated 26th March, 2008 in H.C.Cr. 196 of 2003) ***************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Abdulhakim Mohamed Hassan Hussein, the appellant herein was arraigned in the superior c
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
There is no difficulty in complying with an order to that effect. It was a prayer for an order allowing the applicant to manifest her religion by doing a specific and clear act, namely, wearing her headscarf.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Platt Ja, Gachuhi & Kwach Ag JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 7 OF 1988 MUTHIKE........................................................APPELLANT VERSUS KENYA FILM CORPORATION LTD...............RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NYERI (CORAM: KNELLER, NYARANGI JJA & GACHUHI Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 105 OF 1985 JAMES NDUHIU MACHARIA ……...…………….……APPELLANT VERSUS MWOTIA MACHARIA ……………………..……….RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Ruling and Order at the High Court at Nyeri, Patel J)
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPLICATION NO 1624 OF 1979 MARTINE APIYO WAINDI …………. PLAINTIFF VERSUS PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD & ANOTHER …....……DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Hancox JA, Chesoni & Platt Ag JJA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 34 OF 1982 KEMFRO AFRICA LIMITED T/A “MERU EXPRESS SERVICES (1976)” & ANOTHER …………….…..…………….APPLICANT VERSUS OLIVE LUBIA & ANOTHER ………….....…..RESPONDENT RULING When this appeal was called on for hearing, Mr Kwach, appearing on behalf of the two respondents, took the preliminary objection that the mandatory provisions of Rule 85 (1) (f) of rules of this court had not been complied with, in that none o