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: 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: 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 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 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 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
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.