Eugene Cotran Beta

AI-derived reasoning profile from published judgments — experimental, verify everything against the decisions themselves.

Decisions35 Period1977-2026 Confidencemedium Name variants merged5CourtsKEHC

Also appears asCotran; Cotran Cotran; E.COTRAN; EUGENE COTRAN

Read this first — limitations.

Main subject areas

kehc (27)

Published decisions from 1982 to 2026; busiest year 2024 (5 decisions).

Civil Appeal: Appeal dismissed (7); Affirmed (2); Appeal allowed (2); The appeal was dismissed. (1)
Civil: The Plaintiff's claim for damages for malicious prosecution (1); The plaintis' suit against the defendants is hereby dismiss (1); The defendant will pay the costs of this suit. (1); Judgment for the Plaintiff for Shs.798,550/= with costs and (1)
Miscellaneous Criminal Application: The charges against the applicant are withdrawn. (1)
Petition for Declaration and Injunction: The Petition is allowed. (1)
Family Appeal: The appeal was dismissed. (1)

Counts are per published decision as classified by AI; not comparable across courts or years.

Most common procedural postures: First Appeal (2), Appeal from a final order (1), Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (1)
[Criminal] outcomes — The order to inspect and copy bank books was quashed.: 1/1
[Civil] outcomes — Judgment for the Plaintiff for Shs.798,550/= with costs and interest: 1/4, The Plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and loss of employment and earning was upheld.: 1/4, The plaintiff's claim for damages and malicious prosecution was not proved on a balance of probabilities.: 1/4, The Plaintiff's claim for damages for malicious prosecution was dismissed.: 1/4
[Civil Suit] outcomes — The court strikes out the plaint, reply to defense, and defense to counterclaim.: 1/2, The plaintiff's claim for Kshs. 22,800/= for breach of contract was dismissed.: 1/2
[Civil Appeal] outcomes — Appeal dismissed: 5/12, Appeal successful: 1/12, Affirmed: 1/12, The appeal was dismissed.: 1/12
[Tort of Malicious Prosecution] outcomes — Affirmed: 1/1

General damages for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment, and loss of employment and earning; special damages; interest and costs of the suit (1)
A declaration that the conduct of the respondents is contrary to and inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 10 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. (1)
A declaration that the respondents violated constitutional rights of the petitioners and in particular Articles 20 (1) and (2), 24 (1), 25 (c), 27 (4), 29, 31, 39, 47, 49, 50 (1) and 51 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010. (1)
An Order that the arrest and incarceration of the 1st to 5th petitioners each for a period commencing on the 20th April 2014 to 16th October 2018 by the respondents for alleged offences of murder and failure to produce them in court in good time was unconstitutional. (1)
An Order for adequate compensation for damages for unlawful arrest and incarceration in (c) above for deprivation of the Constitutional right to freedom of movement and their liberty by the respondents. (1)

Avg cited authorities/decision: 2.3
Frequently applied statutes: Criminal Procedure Code (4), Constitution of Kenya 2010 (3), Penal Code (3), Civil Procedure Act (2), Public Authorities Limitation Act, 1974 (2)