Judgment[1993] KEHC 144
Enock Otieno Otieno & 4 others v Republic
High Court at KisumuCriminal Case No 70 of 1993
CriminalCriminal Appeal
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS 111, 112, 113, 114 & 115 OF 1993 ENOCK OTIENO OTIENO OTIENO JACERO JOSEPH ORWA OBONYO SAMSON NYAKWA ODEYO ZACHARY OPIYO MATEWA…....…….. APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC……………………………..
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA AT COURT OF APPEAL IN KISUMU CRIMINAL APPEAL 32 OF 1989 JOSEPH OLOO NYAMUGA ...………….…….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ……………………...…..………… RESPONDENT ****************** ORDER OF THE COURT The appellant having served the sentence and released from prison on 25th May, 1992, and his whereabouts being unknown, this appeal abates under rule 70(7) of the Rules of this Court.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Accordingly we enhance the damages to Kshs 40,000/-. We uphold the order of the superior court as to costs in that Court but allow the costs of this appeal as the appellant against the respondent.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT KISUMU Criminal Appeal 7 of 1991 JOSHUA LIYAYI MUSUNGU ……….....……….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ………..………………………….… RESPONDENT (Appeal from a sentence of the High Court of Kenya Kakamega (Mr Justice Osiemo) dated 15th October, 1990, In H.C.CR.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
The intention as can be detected from the evidence was to beat the two boys in order to get them to produce the money. The next question is whether the intention to beat or chastise the deceased and Crispo so that they produce the stolen money was a common intention shared by all the four accused persons at the time they were beating the two boys.
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
the same that he advanced before the Superior Court. He has also promised to rehabilitate himself in order to become a useful member of the society.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO 80 OF 1985 JOHN HAYO OWUOR.....................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL & 2 OTHERS..........DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Okhwatenge v Republic Court of Appeal, at Kisumu March 13, 1991 Hancox CJ, Gachuhi & Cockar JJ A Criminal Appeal No 96 of 1990 (Appeal from a Judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kakamega (Mbogholi - Msagha, J) dated 5th July, 1990 in HC CR App No 300 of 1989) Criminal Practice and Procedure – lapse of time – whether invalidates a charge. Criminal Law – false pretence – charge of procuring registration of land by false pretences - Penal Code (cap 63) section 320 - whether pro
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CORUM:HANCOX CJ, GICHERU JA & COCKAR AG JA CIVIL APPEAL NO 8 OF 1990 BETWEEN ERNEST WESONGA KWEYU……………………….APPELLANT AND KWEYU OMUTO……….RESPONDENT (An appeal from the Judgment of the High Court at Kakamega (Mbogholi J) dated 12th day of October, 1989 in HCCC No 106 of 1987 (OS))
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
from the type of agency which has to be considered as part of the law of principal and agent, in order to ascertain whether a principal is bound by an agreement purportedly made by his agent. Since the defence was immediately taken over by the advocate the necessity thenceforth for a recognised agent disappeared.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (CORAM: NYARANGI, MASIME & COCKAR, JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 1990 BETWEEN TOM JACOB MIDILA OJWANG..............................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC..............................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Kisumu (Khamoni, J.) dated 5th October, 1990 in H.C.CR.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU crim apps 235,236,238 of 90 GARI & 2 OTHERS………..…………..PLAINTIFF V REPUBLIC……………………….………DEFENDANT ed) (From Original Conviction and Sentence of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at Kisumu (C.O. Ong’undi, Esq, P.M.) in Criminal Case No 189 of 1989) Evidence – secondary evidence – notice to produce a document – Evidence Act (cap 80) section 69 – to whom such notice is given – when such notice can be dispensed with – party who does not have po
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO 191 OF 1985 HARUN MIRUKA…………....….…..…. PLAINTIFF VERSUS JARED OTIENO ABOK TOBIAS OMONDI ABOK….…...........DEFENDANTS RULING The two applicants Jared Otieno Abok (1st defendant) and Tobias Omondi Abok (2nd defendant) ask me by their Chamber Summons dated 20th June, 1989 and filed in court on 30th June, 1989 for several orders, namely, that the judgment entered against them ex parte on the 16th February, 1988 be set aside, that ther
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Omedo v Republic REPUBLIC OF KENYA Court of Appeal, at Kisumu June 11, 1990 Nyarangi, Gicheru & Kwach JJA Criminal Appeal No 23 of 1990 On June 11, 1990, Nyarangi, Gicheru & Kwach JJA delivered the following Judgment. This is an appeal against the sentence of six years imposed on the appellant by the High Court (Omolo J) on 26th June, 1989.
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Lwengele & another v Staff Counsel REPUBLIC OF KENYA Court of Appeal, at Kisumu March 27, 1990 Nyarangi, Gicheru JJA & Chesoni Ag JA Criminal Appeal No 23 of 1986 On March 27, 1990, Nyarangi, Gicheru JJA & Chesoni Ag JA delivered the following Judgment. The question which arises in this appeal is, a short one, and we think an easy one.
Division and case type: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO 9 OF 1990 JONATHAN MUNGAI WAINAINA ……………………..APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………..……………..........……….RESPONDENT RULING The applicant Jonathan Mungai Wainaina applies to me by chamber summons under section 123(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for bail pending his trial. He is charged with various offences in the Court of the Resident Magistrate at Kisumu and those offences would appear to arise from the circumsta
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (Coram: Nyarangi, Gicheru & Kwach, JJA ) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 17 OF 1989 Between CLAY GODWIN WAMBULWA............................ APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC.........................................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Mwaniki v Republic (Criminal Appeal 62 of 1989) [1989] KECA 64 (KLR) (14 August 1989) (Judgment) Mwaniki v Republic[1989] eKLR Neutral citation: [1989] KECA 64 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CRIMINAL APPEAL 62 OF 1989 JO NYARANGI, JE GICHERU & RO KWACH, JJA AUGUST 14, 1989 BETWEEN MWANIKI ...................................................................................................... ACCUSED AND REPUBLIC ............................................................