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: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2004 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Case 10 of 1980 FRANCIS ORIGO...............................................1st PLAINTIFF PETER PANYAKO...........................................2nd PLAINTIFF VERSUS JACOB KUMALI MUNGALA............................... DEFENDANT RULING On 12th May, 2000 the Resident Judge Eldoret, Lady Justice Nambuye wrote to me thus on the above case: - "There is an application for Review pending in theabove file.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Case 10 of 1980 FRANCIS ORIGO...............................................1st PLAINTIFF PETER PANYAKO...........................................2nd PLAINTIFF VERSUS JACOB KUMALI MUNGALA............................... DEFENDANT RULING On 12th May, 2000 the Resident Judge Eldoret, Lady Justice Nambuye wrote to me thus on the above case: - "There is an application for Review pending in theabove file.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 823 OF 1991 MATHIGU………...…… APPLICANT VERSUS MWAURA……..…………. DEBTOR RULING This is an application by the objector to the attachment of motor vehicle KXK 245 in execution of the decree in this suit.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET CIVIL CASE NO 61 OF 1991 GABRIEL NDUNGU KINUTHIA.........................APPLICANT VERSUS GEORGE W WAWERU................................RESPONDENT RULING On 27th December 1991, the plaintiff/applicant filed a suit against the defendant/respondent and claimed from him both general and special damages arising out of an accident which occurred on 16th June 1989 along Nyeri-Nyahururu Road in which the plaintiff/applicant sustained severe injur
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION NO 13 OF 1991 JOHN OPIYO ARUNGA..........................APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC...........................................RESPONDENT REVISION This is an application for a revision under sections 362, 364, 365 and 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application has been filed by M/s Gumba Onywera & Company Advocates for the applicant John Opiyo Arunga and it arises out of a Miscellaneous Criminal Application No 12 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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Provided that after conviction and before passing sentence or making any order the court may permit or require the complainant to outline to the court the facts upon which the charge is founded.” Reading S 72 of the Constitution and S 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code together, we continue in the view that the court is to sentence the accused only for the offence with which he is charged, and that the facts to be given are the facts relating to that charge. If the prosecution wish to have the a
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: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
The application which is expressed to be brought under order 94 rule 10 and 11, order XXI rule 22, order XII rule 1 and order XXII rule 11(1) and (2) Civil Procedure Rules was filed on 27th, two days before the date fixed for the sale of goods attached in the suit to recover the amount of the decree. The goods include, an air compressor, two sand blasting units, three air spray guns, three tool kits and some spare parts.