Lesii Lesii Beta
Read this first — limitations.
- Patterns reflect published decisions only.
- This is not an assessment of private character, integrity or bias.
- Outcome distributions are per case-type and not comparable across courts/years.
- Based on 8 decision(s); small samples are indicative only.
- Name normalization is automatic and may merge or split judges incorrectly.
Main subject areas
Activity
Published decisions from 2006 to 2012; busiest year 2009 (2 decisions).
Documented outcomes by case type
- Civil: The application is granted. (2); Dismissed (1)
- Judicial Review: Struck off with costs (1)
- Civil Suit: The proceedings are set aside and the application is directe (1); The application is dismissed. (1)
- Miscellaneous Application: The application is granted, and the taxing master's decision (1)
- Criminal Appeal: Appeal allowed, convictions quashed, sentences set aside (1)
Counts are per published decision as classified by AI; not comparable across courts or years.
Most-cited legislation
- Civil Procedure Rules (2)
- Land Disputes Tribunals Act No. 18 of 1990 (1)
- Civil Procedure Act (1)
- Advocates (Remuneration Order) (1)
Documented reasoning patterns
- Most common procedural postures: Application for Temporary Injunction (2), Ex-parte application for prohibition and certiorari (1), Appeal from a ruling on a preliminary objection (1)
- [Judicial Review] outcomes — Struck off with costs: 1/1
- [Civil] outcomes — The application is granted.: 2/3, Dismissed: 1/3
- [Civil Suit] outcomes — The proceedings are set aside and the application is directed to be argued before Hon. Khaminwa, J.: 1/2, The application is dismissed.: 1/2
- [Miscellaneous Application] outcomes — The application is granted, and the taxing master's decision is set aside. The bill of costs is remitted for fresh taxation.: 1/1
- [Criminal Appeal] outcomes — Appeal allowed, convictions quashed, sentences set aside: 1/1
Writing characteristics
- Median judgment length ~11092 words
- Includes panel decisions
Remedy patterns
- Nullity of the Tribunal's decision (1)
- The Defendant should pay for the costs of the application. (1)
- The Defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the application. (1)
- Costs to be paid to the Applicant (1)
- Remission of the bill of costs for fresh taxation (1)
Citation patterns
- Avg cited authorities/decision: 0.5
- Frequently applied statutes: Civil Procedure Rules (2), Land Disputes Tribunals Act No. 18 of 1990 (1), Civil Procedure Act (1), Advocates (Remuneration Order) (1)
Sample decisions
REPUBLIC v CHAIRMAN PROVINCIAL LAND DISPUTES TRIBUNAL & another Ex-parte DAVID MUTISYA MULANDI [2006] KEHC 733 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2006] KEHC 733 (KLR) · 22 June 2006
ONGATA RONGAI TOTAL FILLING STATION LIMITED v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [2007] KEHC 1335 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2007] KEHC 1335 (KLR) · 30 November 2007
ONGATA RONGAI TOTAL FILLING STATION LIMITED v INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION [2007] KEHC 401 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2007] KEHC 401 (KLR)
AGGREY PETER THANDE v CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA LIMITED [2008] KEHC 1202 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2008] KEHC 1202 (KLR) · 9 October 2008
MACHROSE LIMITED v BANK OF BARODA LIMITED & another [2008] KEHC 357 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2008] KEHC 357 (KLR) · 28 November 2008
KENYA TEA DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v LEO MASORE NYANG’AU T/A MASORE NYANG’AU 1O. ADVOCATES [2009] KEHC 2465 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2009] KEHC 2465 (KLR) · 12 June 2009
RUSTAM HIRA v ORIENTAL COMMERCIAL BANK [2009] KEHC 3500 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2009] KEHC 3500 (KLR) · 29 May 2009
HUMPHREY MUTETHIA & ANOTHER V REPUBLIC [2012] KEHC 3095 (KLR)
High Court of Kenya · [2012] KEHC 3095 (KLR) · 12 July 2012