Judgment[1989] KECA 48
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAKURU (Coram: Platt, Gachuhi & Apaloo JJA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 141 OF 1986 BETWEEN JOHN MBURU KINYANJUI.................................. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC..................................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: PLATT, GACHUHI, & APALOO, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 1987 BETWEEN GEORGE OBEWA ………............…APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ….………….........…..RESPONDENT (Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu, (Mr.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
For all the foregoing reasons, then, I would allow the appeal, I would set aside the learned judge’s order striking out the winding up petition and I would order that the petition should proceed to hearing subject to the Rules being complied with. I would not make any order regarding prayer five in the memorandum of appeal as regards the proposed further advertisements, and I agree that the notice of grounds for affirming the decision should be dismissed.
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller, Nyarangi JJA & Platt Ag JA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 14 OF 1985 Between ANWAR KIPNGETICH ......................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC......................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the High Court at Nairobi, O’Kubasu J) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT November 12, 1985, Kneller, Nyarangi JJA & Platt Ag JA delivered the following Judgment.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller Hancox JJ A and Chesoni Ag J A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 37 OF 1984 BETWEEN GILBERT CHEGE ………………………………….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ………………………………………….
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Parliament until 1979, when he lost his seat; who would pay them Kshs 36,000 for carrying out that order which was described as ‘the work’. If the prosecution case was accepted there could be no question but that Charles and the second appellant were to be armed with guns when they went to arrest Tenai.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Parliament at the next or any subsequent session. They therefore became invalid and detention orders made became null and void ab initio.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram:Hancox JA, Chesoni & Nyarangi Ag JJA ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1 OF 1982 BETWEEN MORJARIA.................................................................................APPELLANT AND ABDALLA...............................................................................RESPONDENT (In an appeal from the High Court at Nakuru, Mead J)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Hancox JA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO NAI 56 OF 1983 BETWEEN SAMUEL MBUGUA GITHERE …….........……APPLICANT AND KIMUNGU…………………………………RESPONDENT (In an intended appeal from the High Court at Nairobi, Gachuhi J) RULING This application is in two parts, the first to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal and the second to extend the time for instituting the appeal which, the applicant’s notice of motion filed on November 15, 1983, states: “... shall be made