Judgment[2023] KEELC 22457
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Environment and LandPetition
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION COURT MARTIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL 5 Of 2016. 87058 SPTE ALLAN OMONDI ANYANGA................APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT.
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
in the submission that the finding in fact has no evidence to support it, we have come to the conclusion that there is evidence on record capable of being taken into consideration to sustain the charge. There was overwhelming evidence of P.W.1., P.W.4 and P.W.5.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA 1 Barry Scutt & Another v Hitesh Jethwa & 2 Others High Court of Kenya at Nairobi June 29, 2000 Milimani Commercial Courts T Mbaluto, Judge Civil Case No 937 of 2000 June 29, 2000 T Mbaluto, Judge delivered the following ruling. This ruling relates to the issue as to who between the applicants who are the plaintiffs in this suit and the 3rd defendant/respondent should bear the costs of the application filed by the plaintiffs herein.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: GICHERU, SHAH & BOSIRE JJ.A) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 27 OF 1999 BETWEEN FRED KIPCHUMBA CHEPKWONY...............................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC....................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and judgment of the High Court of Kenya in Embu (Mr.
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: 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: 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: 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: CivilCivil Appeal
I agree with the judgment of Nyarangi JA. The appeal will be allowed with the orders proposed by him.
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.