Judgment[1992] KEHC 164
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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: CivilCivil Case
Court for want of prosecution be set aside. The learned judge while setting aside the dismissal order declined an application for leave to appeal without assigning any reasons.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Court of Appeal, at Mombasa July 25, 1991 Gachuhi,Masime JJ A & Omolo Ag JA Civil Appeal No 144 of 1990 Kenya Breweries Ltd v Saro (Appeal from a Judgment and decree of the High Court at Mombasa, Githinji J, dated 21st May 1990 in HCCC No 602 of 1987) Damages - general damages - claim for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act (cap 32) - father claiming damages for the death of six year old child - whether father entitled to such damages in the absence of evidence of any pe
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
have the ex-parte judgment set aside and in consequence all subsequent orders including the order appealed against are nullified. The appeal must be allowed.” It follows therefore, that the exparte judgment of 29th of April, 1991 was entered against the 2nd defendant/respondent, Mwika in error.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU Civil Case 215 of 1990 M’IKUNYUA IBARI STEPHEN KIJOGI IBARI………………………….PLAINTIFFS versus NKANATA M’IBARI……………...…....……..……DEFENDANT 28/1/91 Coram: SO Oguk – judge Plaintiff in person Defendant - absent Court Interpreter – Murungi
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU CIVIL CASE NO 26 OF 1990 MURUNGI NKAMBI …. … PLAINTIFF versus DAVID M’ABURI … ….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT ELDORET CIVIL APPEAL NO 6 OF 1987 CHELELGO LIMO …………………………….... APPELLANT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF LANDS…….………….
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Mrama v Republic REPUBLIC OF KENYA Court of Appeal, at Mombasa July 17, 1990 Gachuhi, Masime & Kwach JJA Criminal Appeal No 73 of 1990 On July 17, 1990, Gachuhi, Masime & Kwach JJA delivered the following Judgment. The appellant’s appeal to the superior court was summarily rejected under section 352(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
On the prepondrance of evidence before me as a whole, I cannot help reaching the inescapable conclusion on such evidence, that the 2nd Defendant was not an innocent purchaser for value of the shit land. I am satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that he was very much aware when he entered into a written agreement with the 1st Defendant (Exhibit A) on the 5th of October, 1987 for the purchase of the suit land that the said land had then been sold to the Plaintiff wh
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Kagiri v Republic (Criminal Appeal 18 of 1988) [1989] KECA 68 (KLR) (31 July 1989) (Judgment) Kagiri v Republic[1989] eKLR Neutral citation: [1989] KECA 68 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MALINDI CRIMINAL APPEAL 18 OF 1988 JRO MASIME, JE GICHERU & RO KWACH, JJA JULY 31, 1989 BETWEEN DAVID MBUA KAGIRI .......................................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ..................................................................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT ELDORET CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 1988 C M S………………….....…..…. APPELLANT VERSUS S W S……..…………….……..
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
declaration or an originating summons for a declaration which obtained in England before 1964. order 54A of the Rules of the Supreme Court directly provided for a declaration on an originating summons.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Kitavi v Cosatal Bottlers Limited Court of Appeal, at Mombasa September 10, 1985 Kneller, Hancox & Nyarangi JJA Civil Appeal No 69 of 1984 (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) Cases 1. Paris v Stephey Borough Council (No 2) [1951] 1 AER 42 2.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Kitavi v Cosatal Bottlers Limited Court of Appeal, at Mombasa September 10, 1985 Kneller, Hancox & Nyarangi JJA Civil Appeal No 69 of 1984 (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J) Cases 1. Paris v Stephey Borough Council (No 2) [1951] 1 AER 42 2.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (Coram: Masime, J.A., Gicheru & Kwach, Ag. JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller, Hancox JJA & Nyarangi Ag JA ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 64 OF 1984 Between KENYA CARGO HANDLING SERVICES LIMITED.................APPELLANT AND DAVID UGWWANG................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the High Court at Mombasa, Bhandari J)
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL 86 OF 83 BETWEEN ANUCHPAND MEGHJI RUPA SHAH VIJAY KUMAR MEGHJI SHAH ……………. APPELLANTS AND REPUBLIC ………………………………………….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MALINDI CIVIL APPEAL 12 OF 83 MUTUKU AND ASSOCIATES…………..………………………….APPELLANT AND FELIX R M KITONGA & BROS LTD…………………………………RESPONDENT (From the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Schofield, J) dated 16th December, 1982) Civil Suit No 65 & 513 of 1978 (Consolidated) _______________ RULING OF THE COURT HANCOX, J A It has been held, repeatedly, by this court that failure to include the formally drawn up decree or order embodying the decision of the court