+254 (51) 221 55 88

Providing Indivisible Justice For All

CASE RESULTS

Lex law officess case results, we are here to provide legal help

OUR CASE RESULTS

We are full sevice general practice law firm, meet our professionals
  • 27 Sep 1996
  • crim app 44 of 96
  • Appeal allowed, conviction of murder contrary to section 204 of the Penal Code quashed, sentence of death set aside and accused found guilty of manslaughter contrary to section 205 of the Penal Code,in view of the severity of the injuries he inflicted on the deceased, Accused sentenced to 9 years imprisonment from the date of judgment of the superior court - 31st January, 1992.

  • 15 Apr 2019
  • Environment and Land Case 135 of 2016
  • 1st plaintiff being wife to 1st defendant; 1st defendant disposing of land to the 2nd defendant without the consent of the 1st plaintiff; defendants not entering appearance and not filing any defence; Matrimonial Property Act providing that consent of spouse is mandatory in a disposition; sale nullified; property to revert back to the previous proprietorship with an entry that the 1st plaintiff has a beneficial interest as spouse.

  • 28 Apr 2017
  • Petition 25 of 2016
  • Application by the 1st Respondent Dismissed

  • 18th day  of  February, 2016
  • Suit touching on two  titles to same land; Both  plaintiff and defendant having leasehold titles; question  of which of the two titles should be  upheld; principles  to be applied;  need for  parties  to show  root  of title; plaintiff alleging to  have  purchased from  a   person   not party to suit, said  person’s  title alleged to have been   purchased from third   party but who had already surrendered his title to  Government;  nothing  to transfer  upon  surrender; plaintiff’s  title  not genuine;  defendant’s   title upheld

Ken Kasing’a v Daniel Kiplagat Kirui & 5 others
ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAKURU 
  • 4th day of November 2015
  • Constitutional petition alleging violation of right to clean and healthy environment; petitioner being owner of land; adjacent owner allowing the erection of a telecommunication receiver station and mast; entity erecting the mast having no licence from CCK to do so; process of planning approval not properly followed; EIA and public consultation; petitioner arguing that he was not consulted; consultation only on caretakers of neighbouring parcels; no proof of consultation of property owners including petitioner; EIA requiring adequate and proper consultation; lacuna in law on regulations on erection of telephone base receiver stations; need for regulations to be in place; remedies; restoration order; receiver station having been put up illegally ordered to be pulled down

  • 21st Day of February 2019.

Peter O. Nyakundi & 68 others v Principal Secretary
HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU 
  • 30th day of September, 2016

STEPHEN KIBOWEN vs AFC
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAKURU   
  • 19th day of March   2015
  • Chargee's sale by auction; plaintiff declared highest bidder and pays purchase price within time; chargee refusing to transfer the property alleging that the sale was illegal for want of a valuation report; whether such sale illegal; no complaint by chargor; whether chargee entitled not to transfer property; held that chargee has obligation to transfer property upon sale

  • 6th day of March, 1998
  • APPEAL DISMISSED

WILFRED KONOSI vs JOHN LOKORIO
HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU 
  • 16th day of  December 2015
  • Nakuru HCCC No. 19 of 2006.
  • Advocate-client Bill of Costs in High Court Miscl. Application NO. 350 of 2009

  • 13th  day of October 2016
  • Plaintiff being wife of 1st defendant; 1st defendant selling suit property to 2nd defendant; property then charged to interested party; plaintiff claiming that she was not aware of the sale and did not approve of it; transaction entered into before new land laws which provide for spousal consent; evidence showing that plaintiff must have been aware of the sale and must have approved of it or at least gave the impression that she approved of it; no need therefore in the circumstances to determine whether or not consent was a requirement before new land laws of 2012; plaintiff's suit dismissed; counterclaim by 2nd defendant for possession of premises allowed