Judgment[2009] KEHC 11
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
Gikandi argues that he is able to show that it is jurisdictionally possible for conservatory orders to be granted despite the envisaged time-lines in Section 32 of the Act.This is the very subject of his application. In view of the restricted time in Section 32, the application by the Petitioners is made even more urgent.Once more urgent a person alleges contravention of his fundamental rights and freedoms under Section 70 – 83 of the Constitution this court as a Constitutional court must stop i
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 39 of 2005 JAYNTILAL DHAMSHI GOSRANI ……………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS KENYA OIL COMPANY LTD.
Division and case type: CivilCase number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA COURT OF APPEAL IN KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPLICATION 323 OF 2009 CFC FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED................................APPLICANT AND JUJA ROAD FANCY STORE LIMITED............................RESPONDENT (An application for extension of time within which to lodge the record of appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon. Lady Justice Khaminwa) dated 6th February 2009 in H.C.C.C.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 616 of 2009 DR. MAINA MWEA T/A SPAX PUB & RESTAURANT ......................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS GEORGE KIMANI NJUKI ………………..…………… ………...1ST DEFENDANT GEPRGE WAINAINA REBO…………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 36 OF 2008 ADBULHAKIM MOHAMED HASSAN HUSSEIN..............APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Ombija, J.) dated 26th March, 2008 in H.C.Cr. 196 of 2003) ***************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Abdulhakim Mohamed Hassan Hussein, the appellant herein was arraigned in the superior c
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL APPEAL 36 OF 2008 ADBULHAKIM MOHAMED HASSAN HUSSEIN..............APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a conviction and sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Ombija, J.) dated 26th March, 2008 in H.C.Cr. 196 of 2003) ***************** JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Abdulhakim Mohamed Hassan Hussein, the appellant herein was arraigned in the superior c
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Appeal 860 of 2004 BLUESHIELD INSURANCE CO. LTD……...…APPELLANT VERSUS SAMUEL NYAGA NGURUKIRI…..…………..RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T 1.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE 33 OF 2008 REPUBLIC versus MWANIA KITHOME RULING 1. That objection taken to the proceedings herein is dated 12.7.2008 and reads as follows:- “i.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
conduct of the defendant’s representatives could not excuse the failure to comply with the unless order the pleading had property been struck out.” The general principle is that orders of the court must be obeyed and a litigant who deliberately and without proper excuse disobeys such an order is not allowed to proceed. Singh Gitau for the Respondent did not come to court to argue his client’s position.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Misc Appli 1670 of 2007 ABID ALI HASHIM……...………..……………….APPLICANT VERSUS ANTONY KIHONGE MUHIA …..……………RESPONDENT RULING Before me is a notice of motion filed pursuant to Section 18 (1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. The applicant seek an order of the court to transfer Nairobi CMCCC No.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 2772 of 1997 ALLAN S. REYNOLDS .................................................PLAINTIFF V E R S U S TWIGA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD...............DEFENDANT R U L I N G On 3rd October, 2008 the court (Waweru, J) conditionally allowed an application herein for stay of execution of decree pending appeal.
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 2772 of 1997 ALLAN S. REYNOLDS .................................................PLAINTIFF V E R S U S TWIGA CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD...............DEFENDANT R U L I N G On 3rd October, 2008 the court (Waweru, J) conditionally allowed an application herein for stay of execution of decree pending appeal.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal (Appli) 164 of 2005 ABDULSHAKOOR KHANDWALLA…………APPLICANT/RESPONDENT AND EAST AFRICAN BUILDING SOCIETY……..RESPONDENT/APPELLANT (Application to strike out record of appeal in an appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Maraga J) dated 11th June, 2004 in H.C.C.C. 30 OF 1994) ******************** RULING OF THE COURT This is an application under Rule 80 of the Court of Appeal Rules (Rules) for
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 862 of 2004 ALBERT KIRUTHI MUKABI (T/a PIPELINE HARDWARE)...PLAINTIFF V E R S U S CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI ..............................................DEFENDANT R U L I N G It is conceded by the Plaintiff’s learned counsel that this suit can no longer be maintained. This is because of the expiry of the Plaintiff’s trading licence on or about the 31st December, 2004 upon which the suit was based.
Division and case type: Environment and LandCivil Suit
The litigants argument is found at page 5 of the ruling 2nd paragraph line 10 from the bottom: “that order vii rule 1(2) Civil Procedure Rules is silent as to whether each plaintiff should file a verifying affidavit, that there is no need for filing affidavit by each plaintiff as what is to be verified is the correctness of the averments and not their truthfulness, that the truthfulness of the claim is a matter for the trial, that the verifying affidavit of the first respondent is sufficient
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Misc Appli 1249 of 2007 BEJA MNYIKA BEJA……………………….…………..APPLICANT Versus ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF KENYA……...…RESPONDENT RULING Before me is the Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2007 brought by Beja Mnyika Beja against the Electoral Commission of Kenya (ECK) in which the Applicant seeks:- (1) To be exempted from serving notice on the Registrar in terms of Order 53 Rule 1(3) Civil Procedure Rules (2) That the court do
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
I have before me an application by the plaintiff expressed to be brought under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act for one primary order, save for costs, that “a temporary injunction do issue restraining the defendant whether by itself, its servants and/or employees from selling or offering for sale whether by public auction or private treaty, transferring, charging, leasing, pledging or in any other way alienati
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Appeal 59 of 2006 JACKSON NZARO……………………………………………………….APPELLANT VERSUS KAVITA BHATT……………………………………………………….. RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T This is an appeal against the decision of the Principal Magistrate given on the 30th March 2006 allowing the Respondent’s applications dated 17th March 2006 and 15th March 2006 in Mombasa CMCC Numbers 817 of 2006 and 993 of 2006 respectively which had been consolidated.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI Civil Appeal 263 of 2004 ABERDARE FREIGHT SERVICES LTD………………………....APPELLANT AND KENYA REVENUE AUTHORITY……………………………….RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi ( Nyamu, J.) dated 9th November 2004 in MISC APPLICATION NO. 946 OF 2004) *************************** REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT On the 9th of June, 2005 we delivered our judgment in this appeal dismissing it and reserv