Judgment[2025] KECA 2217
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: ELRCMiscellaneous Application
Abdirahman & another v National Land Commission & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E012 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) (19 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18471 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT GARISSA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND PETITION E012 OF 2025 MN GICHERU, J DECEMBER 19, 2025 IN THE MATTER OF: THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010; IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 1, 2, 3, 10(1) & (2), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 40, 47, 50(1), 60, 61, 62, 66, 67, 68,
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: Constitutional and Human RightsJudicial Review
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
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: CivilCivil Appeal
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: CriminalCriminal Case
Alukhaba v Director of Public Prosecutions (Criminal Appeal E007 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) (23 December 2022) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16913 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA CRIMINAL APPEAL E007 OF 2021 WM MUSYOKA, J DECEMBER 23, 2022 BETWEEN JOHN ALUKHABA ................................................................................. APPELLANT AND DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ....................................
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: CriminalCriminal Case
I therefore find that the application for revision dated 29th July, 2020 is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed. The exparte orders granted on 30th July, 2020 staying the lower court proceedings are automatically vacated by the dismissal of the application.
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: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO. 25 OF 2015 ABDULKARIM SALEH MUHSIN......................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS 1.
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 Appeal
24 of the Advocates Remuneration Order imposes that duty on the borrowers advocate. An order of specific performance presupposes a legal or equitable obligation on a person to perform it and since such a legal obligation does not flow from the security documents or the provisions of the law I have cited, the learned trial magistrate erred in ordering specific performance.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
24 of the Advocates Remuneration Order imposes that duty on the borrowers advocate. An order of specific performance presupposes a legal or equitable obligation on a person to perform it and since such a legal obligation does not flow from the security documents or the provisions of the law I have cited, the learned trial magistrate erred in ordering specific performance.
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 RightsConstitutional Petition
REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Mombasa Constitutional Petition 59 of 2011 IN THE MATTER OF: CHAPTER FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 47 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF: PETITION BY ABDULLAH MANGI MOHAMED CHALLENGING INFRINGEMENT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY THE ISSUE, EXISTENCE AND CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF TITLE DEED HELD BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 10TH JANUARY 2006 OVER PLOT NO. 539 SECTION III MAINLAND NORTH BETWEEN ABDULLAH M
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO. LOWE & COMPANY LIMITED …………………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS CREDIT AGRICOLE INDOSUEZ …………………………1ST DEFENDANT BANK OF AFRICA KENYA LIMITED …………...…….….2ND DEFENDANT REGISTRAR OF TITLES, MOMBASA …………….…….3RD DEFENDANT RULING AND/OR DIRECTIONS A fundamental issue has arisen in respect of the application dated 30.10.2010 by the 1st Defendant and which all parties agree will have crucial consequences or ramifications depe
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: 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