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: CriminalCase number Criminal Revision
Aden v Republic (Criminal Revision E409 of 2024) [2024] KEHC 16427 (KLR) (23 December 2024) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16427 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT ELDORET CRIMINAL REVISION E409 OF 2024 RN NYAKUNDI, J DECEMBER 23, 2024 BETWEEN ISSA ADEN ................................................................................................ APPLICANT 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: 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: CivilMiscellaneous Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MISC. E13 OF 2020 ATLANTIS KENYA LIMITED......APPLICANT VERSUS CHEBUSWA LIMITED...............RESPONDENT Coram: Hon.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI CONST. 20 OF 2018 ATHUMANI SHUSHE BAHOLA...........................................PETITIONER VERSUS REPUBLIC..............................................................................RESPONDENT CORAM: Hon.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI ELECTION PETITION NO 8 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE MEMBER OF SENATE OF LAMU AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION ACT, 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION (PARLIAMENTARY AND COUNTY ELECTION) PETITION RULES, 2017. BETWEEN ALBEITY HASSAN ABDALLA.......................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE INDEPENTEDENT ELECTROAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (I.E.B.C)...............................................
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI ELECTION PETITION NO 8 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION FOR THE MEMBER OF SENATE OF LAMU AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION ACT, 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION (PARLIAMENTARY AND COUNTY ELECTION) PETITION RULES, 2017. BETWEEN ALBEITY HASSAN ABDALLA.......................................................PETITIONER VERSUS THE INDEPENTEDENT ELECTROAL AND BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (I.E.B.C)...............................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 47 OF 2011 In the matter of the Estate of MZEE OMARI (Deceased) ABDALLA MUTEMBEI GISAGA.................................APPLICANT VERSUS PAMELA GACHERI PATRISIO.........................1ST RESPONDENT CRISUS MICHENI NDEKE (MWALIMU)..........2ND RESPONDENT NYAGA ISMAEL (SMATEX)............................3RD RESPONDENT JOSEPH MURITHI (MUEMBU).......................4TH RESPONDENT NJAGI NTIBA (CHIBU)...........................
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ABDALLA KIRAO MKARE WANJE 2.
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsPetition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI MATRIMONIAL CAUSE NO. 14 OF 2008 C.A.M……………………………......................…PLAINTIFF -VERSUSW.T.C…………………………..………………....DEFENDANT RULING C.M.A (the petitioner) has filed this cause against W.T.C (the respondent) in which she petitions for the dissolution of the marriage between her and the respondent.
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: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Case 10 of 1980 FRANCIS ORIGO...............................................1st PLAINTIFF PETER PANYAKO...........................................2nd PLAINTIFF VERSUS JACOB KUMALI MUNGALA............................... DEFENDANT RULING On 12th May, 2000 the Resident Judge Eldoret, Lady Justice Nambuye wrote to me thus on the above case: - "There is an application for Review pending in theabove file.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Case 10 of 1980 FRANCIS ORIGO...............................................1st PLAINTIFF PETER PANYAKO...........................................2nd PLAINTIFF VERSUS JACOB KUMALI MUNGALA............................... DEFENDANT RULING On 12th May, 2000 the Resident Judge Eldoret, Lady Justice Nambuye wrote to me thus on the above case: - "There is an application for Review pending in theabove file.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Case 73 of 1995 1. DENNIS MUYA GACHANJA (minor suing through next friend)...........PLAINTIFFS versus 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Case 96 of 1996 RAYMOND WOLLEN MILLS…………..……….PLAINTIFF versus KATE MOKI MOKI……………………..……..DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET Civil Suit 40 of 1998 MAECEOM CONSULTANTS...........................................................................PLAINTIFF versus KERIO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.....................................DEFENDANT RULING The defendants herein who are Messrs Kerio Valley Development Authority vide their letter ref KVDA/HQS/PRJ/630/VOL.XVI dated 6/3/97 wrote to the plaintiff Maeceom Consultants. The subject of the letter was valuation of T
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
by the decision of the assessors. It has to re evaluate the evidence on its own and reach its own conclusion either agreeing or disagreeing with the assessors.