Judgment[1999] KECA 110
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Application
is Order VI rule 13(1) and an order under that provision is also equally appealable as of right under Order XLII rule 1. I am, therefore, satisfied that an appeal does lie in the instant case without leave from the decision of the Judge which is sought to be appealed against.
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 NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller, Nyarangi, JJ A and Gachuhi, Ag J A) CIVIL APPEAL 5 OF 1984 BETWEEN BAKSHISH SINGH & BROTHERS ………….………...............…………….. APPELLANTS AND PANAFRIC HOTELS LIMITED ………..…………….....................…………..
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.
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Kneller JA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO NAI 33 OF 1984 BETWEEN GEOFFREY NDUNG’U THEURI ……………APPLICANT AND LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA…………………..RESPONDENT (In an intended appeal from the High Court at Nairobi, Porter J) RULING Geoffrey Ndung’u Theuri, the applicant, by an ex parte motion on notice filed by July 31, 1984 under rule 112 of the Court of Appeal Rules (cap 9), moves that the court by orders directs that his intended appeal may be lodged without prior payment
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
ORDER Mr Khanna, for the appellants, by a motion on notice of February 2, 1984, expressed to be brought under rules 42 and 96 of the Court of Appeal Rules, asks this court to substitute as a party to the appeal in place of the late second appellant, Ajit Gurbaksh Singh, either Harbans Kaur, the widow, or one or both of the named executors of the deceased’s will who are Amrik Singh Gurbaksh Singh and Joginder Singh Gurbaksh Singh, the third and fifth appellants, and the hearing of the appeal