Judgment[1990] KEHC 62
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
stated that the owner of the lorry to show cause why maize and lorry should not be forfeited, that order did not preclude the owner of the maize to appear if he was not the owner of the lorry, and claim his maize. The appellants aware of that order as it was made in their presence at the sitting in which the court had convicted them and during the continuation of the same proceedings as it is apparent from the Court record of the proceedings of that day.
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: CivilCivil Appeal
Madede & another v Fita & 2 others (Civil Appeal 4 of 1986) [1988] KECA 108 (KLR) (12 April 1988) (Judgment) Madede & another v Ainea Fita & 2 others [1988] eKLR Neutral citation: [1988] KECA 108 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL 4 OF 1986 JO NYARANGI, JM GACHUHI & FK APALOO, JJA APRIL 12, 1988 BETWEEN MADEDE & ANOTHER & ANOTHER ............................................... APPELLANT AND AINEA FITA ............................................................