Case Search

pillars

Case Action: Judgment


Sinohydro Corporation Limited V George Otieno Waudi [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal 65 of 2014 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Kisumu

Parties: Sinohydro Corporation Limited v George Otieno Waudi

Citation: Sinohydro Corporation Limited V George Otieno Waudi [2016] eKLR

Read More

Rodgers Kipkoech Lagat V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 29 of 2014 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: George Kanyi Kimondo

Court: High Court at Eldoret

Parties: Rodgers Kipkoech Lagat v Republic

Citation: Rodgers Kipkoech Lagat V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

In Re J W (Minor) [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Adoption Cause 265 of 2015 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Margaret Waringa Muigai

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: In re J W (Minor)

Citation: In Re J W (Minor) [2016] eKLR

Read More

Gladys Muthoni Mwangi & 20 Others V Barclays Bank Of Kenya Limited & Another [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 25 of 2016 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Monica Mbaru

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Parties: Gladys Muthoni Mwangi & 20 Others v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited & Barclays Africa Group Limited

Citation: Gladys Muthoni Mwangi & 20 Others V Barclays Bank Of Kenya Limited & Another [2016] eKLR

Read More

Thomas Ontita Monene V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 8 of 2016 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Joseph Raphael Karanja

Court: High Court at Kisii

Parties: Thomas Ontita Monene v Republic

Citation: Thomas Ontita Monene V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Julius Metili Mpikas [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal (Murder) 97 of 2012 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Joseph Raphael Karanja

Court: High Court at Kisii

Parties: Republic v Julius Metili Mpikas

Citation: Republic V Julius Metili Mpikas [2016] eKLR

Read More

Sinohydro Corporation Limited V George Otieno Waudi [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal 65 of 2014 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Kisumu

Parties: Sinohydro Corporation Limited v George Otieno Waudi

Citation: Sinohydro Corporation Limited V George Otieno Waudi [2016] eKLR

Read More

Kenya Plantation And Agricultural Workers Union V Sotik Highlands Tea Estate Limited [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 218 of 2015 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Marete D.K. Njagi

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho

Parties: Kenya Plantation And Agricultural Workers Union v Sotik Highlands Tea Estate Limited

Citation: Kenya Plantation And Agricultural Workers Union V Sotik Highlands Tea Estate Limited [2016] eKLR

Read More

Francis Kariuki Ngunda V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 47 of 2015 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Robert Kipkoech Limo

Court: High Court at Kerugoya

Parties: Francis Kariuki Ngunda v Republic

Citation: Francis Kariuki Ngunda V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union V Unilever Tea (K) Limited [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 32 of 2014 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Marete D.K. Njagi

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho

Parties: Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union v Unilever Tea (K) Limited [

Citation: Kenya Plantation & Agricultural Workers Union V Unilever Tea (K) Limited [2016] eKLR

Read More

Kenya Plantation And Agricultural Workers Union V James Finlay Kenya Limited (Finlay Flowers) [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 3 of 2015 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Marete D.K. Njagi

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kericho

Parties: Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers Union v James Finlay Kenya Limited (Finlay Flowers)

Citation: Kenya Plantation And Agricultural Workers Union V James Finlay Kenya Limited (Finlay Flowers) [2016] eKLR

Read More

State V Samuel Muchomba Muthuri [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 44 of 2009 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Roseline Pauline Vunoro Wendoh

Court: High Court at Meru

Parties: State v Samuel Muchomba Muthuri

Citation: State V Samuel Muchomba Muthuri [2016] eKLR

Read More

Evans Katiezo Aligulah V Eldomatt Wholesale And Supermarket Ltd [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 6 of 2014 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Maureen Onyango Atieno

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu

Parties: Evans Katiezo Aligulah v Eldomatt Wholesale and Supermarket Ltd

Citation: Evans Katiezo Aligulah V Eldomatt Wholesale And Supermarket Ltd [2016] eKLR

Read More

Wilson Ngaro Ahoya V City Council Of Nairobi [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 1922 of 2011 Date Delivered: 30 Jun 2016

Judge: Nzioki wa Makau

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Parties: Wilson Ngaro Ahoya v City Council of Nairobi

Citation: Wilson Ngaro Ahoya V City Council Of Nairobi [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Chairperson - Business Premises Rent Tribunal At Nairobi & Another Ex-Parte Suraj Housing & Properties Limited & 2 Others [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous Civil Application 134B of 2015 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: George Vincent Odunga

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Republic v Chairperson - Business Premises Rent Tribunal at Nairobi & Rosemary Wangari Chege Ex-Parte Suraj Housing & Properties Limited, Suraj Plaza Limited & Suraj Plaza Management Limited

Citation: Republic V Chairperson - Business Premises Rent Tribunal At Nairobi & Another Ex-Parte Suraj Housing & Properties Limited & 2 Others [2016] eKLR

Read More

John Gitonga Ndungu & Another V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 194 of 2013 & 137 of 2014 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Luka Kiprotich Kimaru

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: John Gitonga Ndungu & Chrispine Odhiambo Magoha v Republic

Citation: John Gitonga Ndungu & Another V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

Patrick Mutune Kimeu V Athi Stores Limited [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 1421 of 2013 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Nzioki wa Makau

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Parties: Patrick Mutune Kimeu v Athi Stores Limited

Citation: Patrick Mutune Kimeu V Athi Stores Limited [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Ali Salim Alias Bahati Taru & 4 Others [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 26 of 2014 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Said Juma Chitembwe

Court: High Court at Malindi

Parties: Republic v Ali Salim Alias Bahati Taru,Hussein Said Alias Snake Boy, Salim Ali Alias Chapati Boy ,Francis Charo Baya & Shee Mohammed Alias Kuhe

Citation: Republic V Ali Salim Alias Bahati Taru & 4 Others [2016] eKLR

Read More

Anthony Kihara Gethi V Ben Gethi & 4 Others [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 62 of 2016 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Onguto Joseph Louis Omondi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Anthony Kihara Gethi v Ben Gethi, Director of Criminal Investigations, Director of Public Prosecutions, Kenyatta National Hospital & National Registration Bureau

Citation: Anthony Kihara Gethi V Ben Gethi & 4 Others [2016] eKLR

Read More

David Ogolla Okoth V Chief Magistrate Court, Kibera & 2 Others [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 5 of 2015 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Onguto Joseph Louis Omondi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: David Ogolla Okoth v Chief Magistrate Court, Kibera,Attorney General & Director of Public Prosecution

Citation: David Ogolla Okoth V Chief Magistrate Court, Kibera & 2 Others [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Director Of Public Prosecutions & Another Ex Parte Patrick Ogola Onyango & 8 Others [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 102,120, 123, 89, 131,132 & 134 of 2016 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Onguto Joseph Louis Omondi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Republic v Director of Public Prosecutions & Chief Magistrates Court at NairobiEx parte Patrick Ogola Onyango,Paul Kinuthia Gachoka,John Hope Vandamme, Benson Gethi Wangui,Charity Wangui Gethi,Jedidah Wangari Wangui, Josephine Kabura Irungu, Martin Gachore Wanjohi, Samuel Mndanyi Wachenje

Citation: Republic V Director Of Public Prosecutions & Another Ex Parte Patrick Ogola Onyango & 8 Others [2016] eKLR

Money laundering proceedings can standalone without proceeds to crime.

Republic v Director of Public Prosecution & another Exparte Patrick Ogola & 8 others

Civil Application No 102 of 2016 

High Court of Kenya at Nairobi

L.J Onguto J

June 29, 2016

Reported by Halonyere Andrew & Nowamani Sandrah  

Constitutional Law-office of the Director of Public Prosecutions-functions and powers- whether the DPP acted irrationally, unreasonably and misunderstood the law as regards to money laundering in instituting criminal proceeding- Constitution of Kenya 2010, article 157(11)- The office of Director of Public Prosecutions Act, Section 4

Criminal Law- offences- money laundering- Proceeds of Crime- Whether a person can be charged with the offence of money laundering prior to a firm and final determination by a court of law that there exist proceeds of crime as to the subject of money laundering- Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act, Sections 2, 3, 4 ,7 and 16(1)

Judicial Review- certiorari and prohibition- application for order of certiorari to quash the decision to prefer charges of money laundering- application for order of prohibition of proceedings and to stall the decision to prosecute by the DPP

Brief facts

In 2014, National Youth Service (NYS) was apparently hit by massive sleaze. There was an alleged theft of an amount of over Kshs. 791,000,000/= which was quickly reported to the various agencies fighting sleaze in Kenya. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission, an independent commission established under Articles 88(1) & 248 of the Constitution was involved. The National Police Service too was roped in and so was the Director of Public Prosecutions.

 The National Police Service, through the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, conducted its inquiry and scrutiny and returned the verdict that monies aggregating to Kshs. 791,385,000/= had been fraudulently acquired and stolen from NYS. The investigations led the National Police Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions to some twenty six (26) suspects. A decision to prosecute was made. Offences related to stealing were preferred against the twenty six suspects.  A criminal case, No. 1905 of 2015 was commenced before the Chief Magistrates’ court with the twenty six persons named as the accused persons. They were duly arraigned in court.

The investigations also led the National Police Service and the DPP to other suspects. The movement of the massive funds allegedly pilfered from the NYS pointed to cases of money laundering. The DPP consequently initiated prosecution of another twelve suspects for the offence of money laundering contrary to Sections 3 & 4 of the Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (Cap 59B) Laws of Kenya (the POCAMLA 2009).

The Applicants’ case was that the decision by the DPP to prefer the charges was irrational, illegal and unreasonable for the basic reason that there was not yet any findings or prove that the sum of Kshs. 791,385,000/= was or forms part of the proceeds of crime. Consequently, no offence of money laundering could stand. It was also the Applicants case that prior to preferring a charge of money laundering against any accused person, the DPP had to have irrefutable evidence and confirmation that the money handled by the accused person was or constituted part of proceeds of crime.

Issues

  1. Whether money laundering proceedings were viable once an indictment of the predicate offence upon which the money laundering offence was funded had been successfully prosecuted?
  2. Whether the DPP acted irrationally, unreasonably and misunderstood the law as regards to money laundering in instituting criminal proceeding against the Applicants.
  3. Whether there was any merit in the decision to prosecute by the DPP.
  4. Whether orders of certiorari and prohibition could be granted to the Applicants to stall the decision to prosecute by the DPP.

 

Relevant provisions of the law.

Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

Article 165(2) (d)

Article 157(11) stipulates as follows:

 (11).In exercising the powers conferred by this Article, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall have regard to the public interest, the interests of the administration of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process.

The office of Director of Public Prosecutions Act

Section 4

In fulfilling its mandate, the Office shall be guided by the Constitution and the following fundamental principles—

 (a) the diversity of the people of Kenya;

 (b) impartiality and gender equity;

 (c) the rules of natural justice;

 (d) promotion of public confidence in the integrity of the Office;

 (e) the need to discharge the functions of the Office on behalf of the people of Kenya;

 (f) the need to serve the cause of justice, prevent abuse of the legal process and public interest;

 (g) protection of the sovereignty of the people;

 (h) secure the observance of democratic values and principles; and

 (i) promotion of constitutionalism.

Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (Cap 59B) Laws of Kenya (POCAMLA, 2009)

Section 3, 4, 7 and 16(1)

Section 2

“proceeds of crime” means any property or economic advantage derived or realized, directly or indirectly, as a result of or in connection with an offence irrespective of the identity of the offender and includes, on a proportional basis, property into which any property derived or realized directly from the offence was later successfully converted transformed or intermingled, as well as income, capital or other economic gains or benefits derived or realized from such property from the time the offence was committed”

Held

  1. Judicial review might be made both on substantive grounds as well as procedural ground. Where review was sought on substantive grounds it might actually touch on the merits of the decision. Thus review might be sought on grounds of ultra vires (excess of powers), alleged abuse of discretionary powers which might include taking into account irrelevant considerations or the exercise of discretionary power for improper purposes and unreasonableness or irrationality. Exercise of discretion might invite proportionality. Errors of law or mistake of fact might also invite judicial review. The public office or body entrusted with discretion had to direct itself properly on the law or its decision might be declared invalid. The notion of error of law goes wider than a mere mistake of statutory interpretation. Acting incompatibly with constitutional rights would also certainly entitle the court to intervene by way of judicial review on any action taken or decision made by a public body or authority
  2. With regard to judicial review on procedural grounds, much focus was laid on the statutory requirements leading to the decision as well as the rules of fair procedure, consistently referred to as rules of natural justice. The application of such doctrines as legitimate expectation, illegality(contrary to the Constitution) and proportionality in determining whether or not to grant judicial review orders was a clear indication that modern judicial review involved a reflection on the merit of the decision. One could not ignore looking at the merit even where the procedure appeared to have been substantially complied with to the latter. The idea was to ensure that procedure was not applied simply out of formality and courtesy.
  3. Article 157 of the Constitution established the office of the DPP and granted it the requisite independence in matters of prosecution. The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions Act laid down the manner of conducting the powers of the office of the DPP. Both under article 157 (11) of the Constitution and Section 4 of the Office of Director of Public Prosecution Act, the discretionary power donated to the DPP to initiate any prosecution was not absolute and where appropriate the court would intervene.
  4. A criminal prosecution would amount to an abuse of the process of the court if, for any reason, it ought not to have been instituted in the first place. Caution had to however taken to ensure that the DPP’s prosecutorial powers are also not unnecessarily hinged or interfered with by the court. The powers of the DPP to prosecute and to decide when to prosecute are constitutional. Minimal interference or superintendence of such constitutional offices was called for. 
  5. Reticence was the route the court ought to follow but where there was obviously an abuse of such prosecutorial powers with a resultant abuse of the court process or prejudice to an accused person, and then the trial had to be halted by the court. The court had powers to enquire into the action of the DPP and review the same with a view to ascertaining whether both procedurally and substantively the decision to prosecute the applicants was flawed to the extent that an order quashing the same was merited and warranted.
  6. Oxymoronic tide: The courts’ twin approach in ensuring that the discretion to prosecute was not abused if only to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system and the same time balancing the public interest in seeing that criminals are brought to book led to rather contradictory principles. On one hand the courts had consistently held that suspects investigated and charged before trial courts could only have their way before the trial court. The trial court was the appropriate forum where evidence was to be tested and all defences raised. On the other hand the courts had also been consistent that a prosecution which lacked a foundational basis could not be allowed to stand. The DPP was not supposed to simply lay charges but had to determine on sound legal principles whether the evidence could sustain a charge prior to instituting the prosecution.
  7. It appeared true that the court had authority to prevent abuses of  its process and safeguard an accused person from oppression and prejudice  on basis of baseless charges, the courts had been quick to observe and   hold that where an indictment was properly drawn in accordance with established practice and pursuant to a decision by the DPP to institute the  prosecution the rest had to be left to the trial court clothed with jurisdiction to deal with it and the accused was to present the defence.
  8.  In matters of judicial review, it was not merely a question of process but also merit. How else would   a court ascertain the presence of or lack of a foundational basis without questioning the merit of the DPP’s decision?  The court had to reflect on both the law and the evidence to ascertain the foundational basis and in the process undertake a more substantive review of the decision by the DPP.
  9. Money Laundering was a global issue. It posed a threat to the integrity and stability of financial as well as governance structures of most economies. Most countries have criminalized clearing or concealing the origins of proceeds of crime. Kenya had its own anti money-laundering legislation; The   Proceeds of Crime and Anti-Money Laundering Act (Cap 59B) Laws of Kenya. The United Kingdom has the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002 (“POCA”) as amended by the Serious Organized Crimes and Police Act, 2005. Both under   POCAMLA 2009 and POCA 2002, it was a crime to deal with criminal property  (or proceeds of crime)
  10. Section 16(1) of the POCAMLA 2009 provided the maximum penalties to be handed to those convicted of money laundering, under Section 3, 4 or 7 of the POCAMLA, 2009. The corporate bodies face penalties   of up to Kshs. 25 million or the amount of the value of the property introduced in the offence, whichever was less. Natural persons on the other hand face jail terms of up to fourteen years or fines not exceeding Kshs. 5   million or the equivalent value of the property involved in the offence whichever was higher or both imprisonment and fine.
  11. Determining the isolated issue was a determination of what needed to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt in an offence of money laundering. It was instructive that the focus was on what was to be proven by the prosecution and not that the prosecution had to first establish that there had existed a conviction or a proven offence where the property or money the subject of the money laundering came. The focus had to thus be on the ingredients of the offence itself.
  12. Section 3 of the POCAMLA 2009 outlined the offence of money laundering as might be committed by third parties. It was for the prosecution of those who launder on behalf of others.  It was intended to help the State to catch    up with persons who in the course of their business or otherwise facilitate money laundering by or on behalf of others and especially the originators of    the crime. The language relating to the physical acts was wide and had to have been deliberately so legislated. Section 3 also imposed a subjective obligation on the accused person.
  13. The physical acts of which a person might be accused of are clear. Entering or engaging in an arrangement in connection with property which formed or was part of proceeds of crime led to criminal liability under the POCAMLA 2009.   Likewise performing any act whether independently or with others with a view to concealing or removing the property which formed or was part of the proceeds of crime or with a view to enabling or assisting the originator of the crime to avoid prosecution, also led to criminal liability. The offence was however not complete in the absence of the subjective. The person who committed the physical act had to also know or ought to reasonably have known that the property was or formed part of the proceeds of crime.
  14. The engagement or arrangement which was the basis of the charge of money laundering had to actually result in an identified individual or entity receiving or retaining property which at the time of the arrangement or engagement was or formed part of criminal property (proceeds of crime). It was for the prosecution to prove not only the actus reus but also the mens rea. The prosecution had to prove that the accused was involved in an engagement or arrangement under Section 3 of   POCAMLA. The prosecution had to also prove knowledge or facts showing that the accused had been deemed to have known that the property received (whether money or otherwise) was part of or constituted proceeds of crime. It was for the prosecution to show the proceeds were the benefit of a criminal conduct. That they were indeed proceeds of crime.
  15. The prosecution need not prove, prior to any charges of money laundering, that there had existed a conviction or an affirmation of a predicate offence. The prosecution need not consequently show a determination by a court of law that there was theft or forgery or fraud that led to the acquisition of the proceeds or property the subject of the money laundering proceedings. The criminal origins of the proceeds might be proved in the same way as any other elements of an offence could be proved. The offence of money laundering had to be deemed as stand-alone offence. In proving that the proceeds or property were proceeds of crime even circumstantial evidence would be crucial. There was no need to await any prior convictions of other offences before launching the prosecution of alleged money launderers.
  16. The particulars of the charge sheet in that matter clearly captured the offence in reasonable terms to meet the requirements of article 50(2)(b) of the Constitution. The ingredients to be proved were emphasized. The charge as drafted was not a revelation of a DPP who did not appreciate the offence. Additionally, the DPP was able to state through affidavit evidence how the investigations led the forensic investigators to the applicants. There was a foundational basis for the    various charges preferred against the Applicants.
  17. The DPP was in a predicament in that matter. He had to not only prove the ingredients of the offence, including the subjective, to the acceptable standard but had to contend with the defences available to persons accused of money laundering, like the Applicants. The burden of proof was not to be flexed. It was not always easy to prove such offences as money laundering where the subjective was invited and the burden appeared to shift from the onset. Some if not all the applicants could well be innocent Kenyans going about their businesses. Their innocence however rested with the trial court.
  18. The applications were not appropriate applications where the judicial review powers might be invoked as no procedural impropriety had been shown and neither was the impugned decision to charge the applicants with the offence of money laundering wanting in both reason and merit on the face of the facts tabled before the court. The court ought to ordinarily interfere with the exercise of the DPP’s prosecutorial powers only in exceptional circumstances. Where the exercise shocked and was detrimental to the proper administration of justice and warranted intervention the court would interfere. But the court should exercise reticence and not second guess the DPP where it was clear that the motive was to perform the function of his office pursuant to the constitutional and statutory provisions and mandate.

Applications dismissed with no costs.

Read More

Zachary Omondi Odongo V Kenya Commercial Bank & Another [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Environment and Land Case 681 of 2015 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Stephen Kibunja

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Zachary Omondi Odongo v Kenya Commercial Bank & Joash Onyango Nyiero

Citation: Zachary Omondi Odongo V Kenya Commercial Bank & Another [2016] eKLR

Read More

Solomon Githae Irungu V Nairobi City Water And Sewarage Company Limited [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 1931 of 2013 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Mathews Nderi Nduma

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Parties: Solomon Githae Irungu v Nairobi City Water and Sewarage Company Limited

Citation: Solomon Githae Irungu V Nairobi City Water And Sewarage Company Limited [2016] eKLR

Read More

Mombasa Maize Millers Limited V W I M Suing As The Representative Of J A M (Deceased) [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal 75 of 2015 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Kisumu

Parties: Mombasa Maize Millers Limited v W I M suing as the representative of J A M (Deceased)

Citation: Mombasa Maize Millers Limited V W I M Suing As The Representative Of J A M (Deceased) [2016] eKLR

Read More

Peter Kinyanjui V Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal & Anne Wambui Ngugi [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous Civil Application 6 of 2016 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: George Vincent Odunga

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Peter Kinyanjui v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal & Anne Wambui Ngugi

Citation: Peter Kinyanjui V Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal & Anne Wambui Ngugi [2016] eKLR

Read More

Akamba Public Road Services Limited V Maureen Akinyi Abok [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal 94 of 2014 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Kisumu

Parties: Akamba Public Road Services Limited v Maureen Akinyi Abok

Citation: Akamba Public Road Services Limited V Maureen Akinyi Abok [2016] eKLR

Read More

Christine Kange Oundo & Another V CFC Stanbic Bank Limited [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 523 of 2012 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Fred Andago Ochieng

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Christine Kange Oundo & Fredrick N. Wamalwa v CFC Stanbic Bank Limited

Citation: Christine Kange Oundo & Another V CFC Stanbic Bank Limited [2016] eKLR

Read More

National Social Security Fund Board Of Trustees V Commissioner Of Domestic Taxes, Kenya Revenue Authority [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Income Tax Appeal 7 of 2014 Date Delivered: 29 Jun 2016

Judge: Fred Andago Ochieng

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: National Social Security Fund Board of Trustees v Commissioner of Domestic Taxes, Kenya Revenue Authority

Citation: National Social Security Fund Board Of Trustees V Commissioner Of Domestic Taxes, Kenya Revenue Authority [2016] eKLR

Read More

Benjamin Sengenge V Mary Simotwo [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Land Case 111 of 2012 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: Elija Ogoti Obaga

Court: Environment and Land Court at Kitale

Parties: Benjamin Sengenge v Mary Simotwo

Citation: Benjamin Sengenge V Mary Simotwo [2016] eKLR

Read More

Thomas Babu Mwaniki V Nassefu Co-operative Savings & Credit Society Limited [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 1911 of 2011 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: Hellen Wasilwa Seruya

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Parties: Thomas Babu Mwaniki v Nassefu Co-operative Savings & Credit Society Limited

Citation: Thomas Babu Mwaniki V Nassefu Co-operative Savings & Credit Society Limited [2016] eKLR

Read More

Ernest Juma Makokha V Philip Sheunda Amulunji [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Succession Cause 613 of 2009 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: Ruth Nekoye Sitati

Court: High Court at Kakamega

Parties: Ernest Juma Makokha v Philip Sheunda Amulunji

Citation: Ernest Juma Makokha V Philip Sheunda Amulunji [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Charo Safari Charo & Another [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 19 of 2011 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: Said Juma Chitembwe

Court: High Court at Malindi

Parties: Republic v Charo Safari Charo & Mtawali Safari Charo

Citation: Republic V Charo Safari Charo & Another [2016] eKLR

Read More

Sammy Kipruto Rop & Another V Francis Cheruiyot Barbelio Sued As The Legal Representative Of Penina Jeptoo (Deceased) [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal 83 of 2012 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: George Kanyi Kimondo

Court: High Court at Eldoret

Parties: Sammy Kipruto Rop & Ayub Morii Alias Kipramoi Ayub v Francis Cheruiyot Barbelio sued as the legal representative of Penina Jeptoo (Deceased)

Citation: Sammy Kipruto Rop & Another V Francis Cheruiyot Barbelio Sued As The Legal Representative Of Penina Jeptoo (Deceased) [2016] eKLR

Read More

Irene Rose Wanjira Mararo V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 147 of 2011 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: John Muting'a Mativo

Court: High Court at Nyeri

Parties: Irene Rose Wanjira Mararo v Republic

Citation: Irene Rose Wanjira Mararo V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

Michael Kimani Munyaka & Another V Isaac Ruto [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal 163 of 2009 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: George Kanyi Kimondo

Court: High Court at Eldoret

Parties: Michael Kimani Munyaka & Nation Media Group v Isaac Ruto

Citation: Michael Kimani Munyaka & Another V Isaac Ruto [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Arthur Onyango Ondigo [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 5 of 2015 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Homabay

Parties: Republic v Arthur Onyango Ondigo

Citation: Republic V Arthur Onyango Ondigo [2016] eKLR

Read More

Judy Wanguthie Kinyua V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 119 of 2013 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: Robert Kipkoech Limo

Court: High Court at Kerugoya

Parties: Judy Wanguthie Kinyua v Republic

Citation: Judy Wanguthie Kinyua V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Otieno Evans Oduor [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 9 of 2014 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Homabay

Parties: Republic v Otieno Evans Oduor

Citation: Republic V Otieno Evans Oduor [2016] eKLR

Read More

Johnson Simiyu Litema V Logos Christian School [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 1473 of 2010 Date Delivered: 28 Jun 2016

Judge: Nzioki wa Makau

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Parties: Johnson Simiyu Litema v Logos Christian School

Citation: Johnson Simiyu Litema V Logos Christian School [2016] eKLR

Read More

Francis Kimani Karanja V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 163 of 2011 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: John Muting'a Mativo

Court: High Court at Nyeri

Parties: Francis Kimani Karanja v Republic

Citation: Francis Kimani Karanja V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Commissioner, Co-operative Development & Another Ex Parte Ngugi Njoroge & 9 Others [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Judicial Review Application 344 of 2015 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: George Vincent Odunga

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Republic v Commissioner, Co-operative Development & Attorney General Ex parte Ngugi Njoroge, Kinyanjui Kongo, Julius Kariuki, Stephen Kinuthia, Boniface Mwangi Mwiga, Wanjiru Kigera, Njoroge Kanini, Benard Gitau, Ng’ati Farmers Co-operative Society Ltd & Ng’ati Farmers Co-operative Society Members

Citation: Republic V Commissioner, Co-operative Development & Another Ex Parte Ngugi Njoroge & 9 Others [2016] eKLR

Read More

Patrick Mutuku Nzomo & Another V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeals 56 & 57 of 2014 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: Pauline Nyamweya

Court: High Court at Machakos

Parties: Patrick Mutuku Nzomo & John Okumu Ondeko v Republic

Citation: Patrick Mutuku Nzomo & Another V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

Ahmed Muhsin Mohamed V Republic [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 22 of 2015 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: Said Juma Chitembwe

Court: High Court at Malindi

Parties: Ahmed Muhsin Mohamed v Republic

Citation: Ahmed Muhsin Mohamed V Republic [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Elisha Ogutu Atieno [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 44 of 2014 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Homabay

Parties: Republic v Elisha Ogutu Atieno

Citation: Republic V Elisha Ogutu Atieno [2016] eKLR

Read More

C A S V C S Limited [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 1443 of 2015 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: Hellen Wasilwa Seruya

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Parties: C A S v C S Limited

Citation: C A S V C S Limited [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Polycarp Onyango Yogo & Another [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 20 of 2014 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Homabay

Parties: Republic v Polycarp Onyango Yogo & Margaret Licha Yogo

Citation: Republic V Polycarp Onyango Yogo & Another [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Boaz Amisi Andrew [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal (Murder) 4 of 2010 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: Joseph Raphael Karanja

Court: High Court at Kisii

Parties: Republic v Boaz Amisi Andrew

Citation: Republic V Boaz Amisi Andrew [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V University Of Nairobi & Another Ex-Parte Nabiswa Wakenya Moses [2016 eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous Application 226 of 2016 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: George Vincent Odunga

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Republic v University of Nairobi & Student Organization of Nairobi University (SONU) Ex-Parte Nabiswa Wakenya Moses

Citation: Republic V University Of Nairobi & Another Ex-Parte Nabiswa Wakenya Moses [2016 eKLR

Read More

Republic V Nicholas Okoth Ouma [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 60 of 2013 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Homabay

Parties: Republic v Nicholas Okoth Ouma

Citation: Republic V Nicholas Okoth Ouma [2016] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Anthony Aoro Amola & Another [2016] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 70 of 2013 Date Delivered: 27 Jun 2016

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Homabay

Parties: Republic v Anthony Aoro Amola & Tobias Odhiambo Amuga

Citation: Republic V Anthony Aoro Amola & Another [2016] eKLR

Read More