Judgment[2004] KEHC 1089
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU HCCA NO. 72 OF 2004 A F ………………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS H A …………………………………..…………..
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU HCCA NO. 72 OF 2004 A F ………………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS H A …………………………………..…………..
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE FRANCIS AGANDA ………………………………………………APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC …………………………………………………………RESPONDENT Consolidated With CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 44 OF 2001 STEPHEN MALIOLO ……………………………………………..APPELLANT V E R S U S REPUBLIC ………………………………………………………….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 73 OF 2002 DIETRICH BOELLING ….…….……………..
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPPEAL 52 OF 2003 GEORGE OMONDI .……….…………………………..……APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC ....….…………………………………...….... RESPONDENT J U D G M E NT George Omondi, the appellant, was convicted for Shop Breaking and committing a felony contrary to Section 306(a) Penal Code.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE NO 476 OF 2003 REPUBLIC ……………………….………...... APPLICANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF POLICE ………….
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Appeal went to great lengths to examine the relevant authorities and I totally agree with their conclusion on that issue. However in this case in considering the legal effect of the Act and the rules and particularly sections 14 (1) (a) and 14 (2) the provisions of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (cap 2) set out namely section 24 and section 33 were not considered.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Suit 74 of 2002 BEATRICE AGOLA OPONDO………...........................................…………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS SWALEH SALIM SAID………….....................................…………………………..DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 95 OF 2003 ALII MARO HERO ………………………………………….
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2002 (Being an appeal against Sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 1998 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 139 OF 2002 SOPHIA WANJIKU………………..................…..APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………....………….RESPONDENT (Appeal from Conviction and Sentence of the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Mombasa, JS Kaburu, SPM in Criminal Case No 3613 of 1998)
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 331 OF 2002 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2001 (From Original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA DIVORCE CAUSE NO.9 “A” OF 1996 A M ………………………………………………… PLAINTIFF - versus – Y J M …………………………………………… DEFENDANT J U D G E M E N T The Petitioner A M is a Swiss national who on 31-1-92 married the Respondent a Kenyan citizen in Switzerland. Immediately after their marriage the two came to Kenya and cohabited together at Diani in South Coast of Mombasa.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1161 OF 2000 (From Original Conviction and Sentence in Criminal Case No.986 of 2000 of the District Magistrate’s at Kigumo). JOHN MAINA KAMAU......................................................APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC........................................................................RESPONDENT CONSOLIDATED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1162 OF 2000 JOSPHAT MURANGA MBOTE........................................APPLICANT
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA John Njoroge Warui vUniversal Bank Ltd High Court of Kenya at Nairobi August 7, 2000 Milimani Commercial Courts T Mbaluto, Judge Civil Case No 583 of 2000 This is an application for an injunction under Order 39 rule 1, 2 and 3 and to restrain the defendant from repossessing or taking possession of motor vehicle registration number KAC 031J until the suit filed by the plaintiff/applicant against the defendant/respondent is heard and determined. The application is supported by
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA (CORAM: OMOLO, AKIWUMI & O'KUBASU, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 83 OF 2000 BETWEEN BWANA KOMBO MUHATI ....................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
Co-Operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shiraz Shabudin Sayani t/a Makupa AGIP Service Station (Civil Suit 23 of 1999) [1999] KEHC 170 (KLR) (19 April 1999) (Ruling) Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Shiraz Shabudin Sayani t/a Makupa Agip Service Station [1999] eKLR Neutral citation: [1999] KEHC 170 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT 23 OF 1999 PN WAKI, J APRIL 19, 1999 BETWEEN CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LTD .............................................. PLAINTIFF AND SHIRAZ
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Criminal Appeal 109 of 1998 AHMED SHEIKH ABDILAHIM .................................................................. APPELLANT versus REPUBLIC....................................................................................................