Judgment[2024] KEHC 16486
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Agengo v Republic (Criminal Revision E268 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) (30 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION E268 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 30, 2024 BETWEEN DAVID MESIA AGENGO ........................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Agengo v Republic (Criminal Revision E268 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) (30 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16486 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CRIMINAL REVISION E268 OF 2024 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 30, 2024 BETWEEN DAVID MESIA AGENGO ........................................................................ APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC ............................................................................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
Otieno v Republic (Criminal Appeal 7 of 2012) [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) (30 December 2013) (Judgment) Marcella Nyabonyi Otieno v Republic [2013] eKLR Neutral citation: [2013] KEHC 277 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISII CRIMINAL APPEAL 7 OF 2012 EN MAINA & SO OKONG'O, JJ DECEMBER 30, 2013 BETWEEN MARCELLA NYABONYI OTIENO ...................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ........................................................................................
Division and case type: Environment and LandCivil Appeal
Ogolla v Onyango Otunga & Company Advocates (Civil Appeal E101 of 2023) [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) (27 December 2023) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 27214 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL E101 OF 2023 RE ABURILI, J DECEMBER 27, 2023 BETWEEN GEORGE OGOLLA .................................................................................. APPELLANT AND ONYANGO OTUNGA & COMPANY ADVOCATES ......................
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
It was submitted that there is a dispute regarding ownership of the suit properties. That under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, where there is proof that any property in dispute is in a danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated or disposed of, the court ought to grant a temporary injunction to restrain such acts.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE WINDING UP CAUSE N0. 01 OF 2011 IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT CHAPTER 486 AND IN THE MATTER OF INTESTATE PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED AFRICA OIL TURKANA (K) LIMITED..................1ST PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL CORPORATION ..............................2ND PETITIONER AFRICAN OIL KENYA BV .......................................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CRIMINAL DIVISION COURT MARTIAL CRIMINAL APPEAL 5 Of 2016. 87058 SPTE ALLAN OMONDI ANYANGA................APPLICANT AND REPUBLIC.........................................................................RESPONDENT.
Division and case type: Environment and LandLand Case
That this Honourable Court be pleased to revive this suit which abated by this Court's order on 2nd July, 2012. That this Honourable Court be pleased to retain the Inhibition Order lodged upon the suit land and to restrain the Defendant from wasting, cutting trees and/or vegetation or anything growing on the suit premises and from harassing the Applicant or the heirs or Dependants of the late Plaintiff until the determination of this suit.
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 79 OF 2007 ANNE KENDI MBAYA............................................................................................PETITIONER VERSUS JONATHAN M’NKANATA M’MUGWIKA............................................................OBJECTOR R U L I N G This is an application by petitioner Anne Kendi Mbaya brought under Section 47 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 73 of the Probate and Administration Rules.
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: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO. DANIEL ………………………………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS JAMES M.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 250 OF 1993 JOHN MWOBOBIA ……...........................…..APPELLANT VERSUS CHILDREN OFFICER MERU……............…..RESPONDENT (From the original conviction and sentence in P&D No 7 of 1992 of DM II’s Court at Meru)
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
For the above reasons I allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and orders of the court below and order that the matter be re-tried by a magistrate with requisite monetary jurisdiction either in Nyeri or Nairobi. I entertain no doubts that the parties who have shown a keen interest in the disposal of the matter shall intimate to the deputy registrar of this Court where they next want to be heard.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MERU CIVIL CASE NO 390 OF 1992(OS) KIBUNDI …………….…………….… PLAINTIFF VERSUS MUKOBWA & ANOTHER ….….... DEFENDANT RULING This is a preliminary question as to whether, by reason of the determination of the originating summons by the High Court, in the High Court Civil Case No 2411 of 1979 (OS), at Nairobi, the instant originating summons, which was also started at Nairobi but in due course was transferred here, is barred by the application of the doctrine of
Division and case type: 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: CivilCivil Case
There is no difficulty in complying with an order to that effect. It was a prayer for an order allowing the applicant to manifest her religion by doing a specific and clear act, namely, wearing her headscarf.
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: 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.