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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: MADAN & NYARANGI JJ A, GACHUHI AG JA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 145 OF 1985 BETWEEN NJOROGE..................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC.................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: KNELLER, HANCOX & NYARANGI JJA) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 177 OF 1984 BETWEEN KARIUKI & ANOTHER .................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC......................................
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
Mwaniki v Republic (Criminal Appeal 62 of 1989) [1989] KECA 64 (KLR) (14 August 1989) (Judgment) Mwaniki v Republic[1989] eKLR Neutral citation: [1989] KECA 64 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CRIMINAL APPEAL 62 OF 1989 JO NYARANGI, JE GICHERU & RO KWACH, JJA AUGUST 14, 1989 BETWEEN MWANIKI ...................................................................................................... ACCUSED AND REPUBLIC ............................................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Abdullah & another v Chari & another (Civil Case E007 of 2021) [2024] KEHC 16144 (KLR) (20 December 2024) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 16144 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYERI CIVIL CASE E007 OF 2021 MA ODERO, J DECEMBER 20, 2024 BETWEEN HAWO SHANKO ABDULLAH .......................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF ZAMZAM GOBE GARO .....................................................................
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
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: CriminalMiscellaneous Criminal Application
Republic of Kenya High Court, at Nairobi (Appellate Side) Criminal Appeal No 997 of 1984 Chege v Republic (Appeal from the District Magistrate’s Court at Kandara, L T Macua Esq, Criminal Case No 825 of 1983) Advocates Appellant present and unrepresented W Ngugi (Miss) (State Counsel) for respondent October 22, 1985, Mbaya J delivered the following Judgment. The appellant was convicted of creating disturbance in a manner likely to cause a breach of peace contrary to section 95(1) of the Penal
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal 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: 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
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: 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: Environment and LandLand Case
the applicant has met the threshold as set in the Mrao case and I see no reason to deny her the orders sought pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The subject matter of the suit being land, I find and hold that damages may not be an adequate remedy to the plaintiff.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
We have taken into account the weighty submissions made for the respondents, regarding the essential principle of compliance with Orders issuing from a Court of law, just as we have closely adverted to the applicants’ case for a proper interpretation of the constitutional status of County Assembly privileges, operating within the scheme of the separationofpowers doctrine. As it is clear to us that the respondents’ case rests on fundamental constitutional questions not yet interpreted, and which
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Court of Appeal at Nyeri Criminal Appeal 116 of 2008 AGNESKASYOKA IBRAHIM...............................................................APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC …...................................................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from the conviction and sentence of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Sitati, J.) dated 18th January, 2003 in H.C.Cr. ******************* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1.
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: FamilySuccession Cause
When the appeal came up for hearing, learned counsels appearing in the matter recorded a consent order to have the appeal disposed of by written submissions. In my view this appeal will be determined by a single point of law without considering the merits of the case.
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
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