Judgment[2026] KECA 1078
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Kamau v Republic High Court, at Nairobi August 29, 1985 Owuor J & Schofield J Criminal Appeal No 1236 of 1984 (Appeal from the Senior Resident Magistrate’s Court at Nairobi, J A Mango, Esq) Advocates Appellant present and unrepresented W Nfugi (Miss) (State Counsel) for respondent August 29, 1985, Owuor J & Schofield J delivered the following Judgment. Bernard Mwangi Kamau appeals against his conviction by a learned senior resident magistrate Nairobi on 3 counts of robbery with
Division and case type: FamilyCase number Adoption Cause
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: 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: CivilCivil Case
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: CriminalCase number Criminal Revision
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 RightsConstitutional Petition
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 RightsPetition
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: CriminalCase number Criminal Revision
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: Employment and Labour RelationsCase number Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CAUSE NO. 96 OF 2013 BERNARD DAMUNGA NDUNDA...........................................................................CLAIMANT -VERSUSKERIO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY...........................................................RESPONDENT (Before Hon.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CAUSE NO. 96 OF 2013 BERNARD DAMUNGA NDUNDA...........................................................................CLAIMANT -VERSUSKERIO VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY...........................................................RESPONDENT (Before Hon.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL CASE NO.8 OF 2007 REPUBLIC…………………………………………………………..PROSECUTOR VERSUS WILLIAM KIPRONO TOWETT Alias NDUME….………..……….1ST ACCUSED WILLIAM KIPKURUI SITONIK……….………………....…………2ND ACCUSED RULING Both accused person are charged jointly that on 15th October, 2006 at Koita Village in Keringet, Molo they murdered Simon Nganga. They denied the offence and their trial commenced before Maraga, J (as he then was).
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL APPEAL NO.215 OF 2009 ANALIK WEKESA…………………………………….……….……....1ST APPELLANT DIOCESE OF LODWAR (Thro’ its Registered Trustees...........….........2ND APPELLANT VERSUS HELLEN WAIRIMU MWANGI & SIMON NJOROGE MWANGI (Suing as the Administrators of the estate ofJAMES KANENE MWANGI (Deceased)….................……....RESPONDENT RULING The Memorandum of appeal was filed on 21st October, 2009 simultaneously with application for stay of execution. The stay was gran
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MACHAKOS CRIMINAL CASE 33 OF 2008 REPUBLIC versus MWANIA KITHOME RULING 1. That objection taken to the proceedings herein is dated 12.7.2008 and reads as follows:- “i.
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Criminal Appli 133 of 2007 AHMED ALI……………………………....………APPLICANT VERSUS REPUBLIC…………………………………...RESPONDENT RULING The applicant, Ahmed Ali, was charged before the Naivasha Chief Magistrate’s Court with the offence of fraudulent false accounting contrary to Section 330 of the Penal Code. The value of the subject of the fraud was stated as Ksh.5,108,210/=.
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Criminal Appeal 44 & 45 of 2004 BENJAMINE NJOROGE KIMANI…………1ST APPELLANT BENSON ORWA MIDILA..…………………2ND APPELLANT VERSUS REPUBLIC………………………………..…….RESPONDENT (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No.1451 of 2003 of the Senior resident Magistrate’s Court at R. Kirui, SRM) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appellants were charged with the offence of robbery with violence contrary to Section 296(2) of the Penal Code.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Civil Appeal 30 of 1997 [Being an appeal from the Judgment of Honourable Japhet Mahasi – R.M in Resident Magistrate’s Court - Kabarnet, Land/Civil case Nos. 1 & 2 of 1992 dated the 24th March 1997] DANIEL KIPKEMEI CHEROGONY ...…...………….…...
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Succession Cause 500 of 1997 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE KIBOWEN KOMEN WILLIAM KIPROP KOMEN………………………………. …….PETITIONER VERSUS RACHEL KIPNGENO KOMEN………….……………………..… OBJECTOR RULING The applicant herein, Agrisup Limited, filed an application by way of a chamber summons under the provisions of Sections 47, 51, 66, 74, 83 and 86 of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 and Rules 7(d), 16 and 49 of Probate and Administration Rules.