Judgment[1990] KEHC 54
Bachitter Singh Chase v Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
High Court at Nairobi
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 4549 OF 1987 BACHITTER SINGH CHASE …………..………..PLAINTIFF VERSUS BARCLAYS BANK OF KENYA LTD…..……..
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT KISUMU CIVIL CASE NO 191 OF 1985 HARUN MIRUKA…………....….…..…. PLAINTIFF VERSUS JARED OTIENO ABOK TOBIAS OMONDI ABOK….…...........DEFENDANTS RULING The two applicants Jared Otieno Abok (1st defendant) and Tobias Omondi Abok (2nd defendant) ask me by their Chamber Summons dated 20th June, 1989 and filed in court on 30th June, 1989 for several orders, namely, that the judgment entered against them ex parte on the 16th February, 1988 be set aside, that ther
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 30 OF 1986 LYDIA CHAO …………………………………………..……… PLAINTIFF VERSUS DHANJAL BROTHERS LTD MUNGA MUHASO HASSAN ISMAEL ABDALLA PAUL WAMBUA MUSILA……………………...................DEFENDANTS
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 1926 OF 1990 KAMUNYI………………...........………………..APPLICANT VERSUS MACHARIA & ANOTHER………………… RESPONDENT RULING By a Chamber Summons dated 17th but filed in court on 18th May, 1990 the applicants as defendants in the suit pray, for an order vacating the order in injunction which was made on 8th May 1990 upon an ex parte hearing of a Chamber Summons which was filed on 20th April, 1990. The hearing proceeded ex parte because neither the de
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 842 OF 1983 FATEMI INVESTMENTS LTD…..…………. PLAINTIFF VERSUS BAYUSUF……………..………………….DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 1859 OF 1990 GITAO & 5 OTHERS ……………………..…..PLAINTIFF VERSUS KENYA NATIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY……………. DEFENDANT RULING The plaintiffs were members of the defendant Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which I shall henceforth call the Chamber, and which is a company limited by guarantee and having no capital.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
evidence which could not with diligence have been discovered, have been discovered, after the order sought to the reviewed was made, or for any other sufficient cause. The new discovery made according to the affidavit in support of the application, is that it had come to the attention of counsel for the applicant after the order of this court was made on 1.12.89, that the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Hintz v Mwakima, (1982-88) 1 KAR 482, had held that a personal representative
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
d/o Umedram Bhagwan Pandya, (Mena) he thereby waived his right to rely on limitation under Order XXIII Civil Procedure Rules, by dint of the provisions of section 39 (1)(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act. In his view estoppel can be raised in limine, and urged me to hold that the defendant is estopped from relying on limitation under Order XXIII Civil Procedure Rules, a defence he had waived.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
On the prepondrance of evidence before me as a whole, I cannot help reaching the inescapable conclusion on such evidence, that the 2nd Defendant was not an innocent purchaser for value of the shit land. I am satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that he was very much aware when he entered into a written agreement with the 1st Defendant (Exhibit A) on the 5th of October, 1987 for the purchase of the suit land that the said land had then been sold to the Plaintiff wh
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 686 OF 1986 MOSES WAITHANJI MINGIRE……………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 414 OF 1985 KANTABEN NEMCHAND SHAH ………..……. PLAINTIFF VERSUS APOLLO BWONYA ORODHO RINAH ORODHO BWONYA EDWARD CHARLES OHARE ………………DEFENDANTS
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
was however fault attributable to imprudence. It is the type of mistake which a court can excuse in order to do justice to the parties in a particular case.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 413 OF 1989 GEORGE & 15 OTHERS ………………………………….....................…..PLAINTIFF VERSUS LIMURU PYRETHRUM GROWERS CO-OP LTD & 9 OTHERS…… DEFENDANTS RULING At the opening of the hearing inter partes of an application by the plaintiffs for an injunction, the counsel for the defendants took a preliminary objection to the proceedings on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Accordingly, the objection w
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 771 OF 1980 MEDITERRANEAN SHIPPING COMPANY SA …………………..... PLAINTIFF VERSUS INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURE ENTERPRISES LTD & ETCO (MSA)LIMITED…………………………………… DEFENDANTS RULING The action herein was for damages based on demurrage of a motor vessel “Penny S”.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI LAW COURTS) CIVIL CASE NO 2042 OF 1985 LONRHO EAST AFRICA LIMITED .....................PLAINTIFF VERSUS CONSOLIDATED CITY VENTURES.......................DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 690 OF 1988 SHAH T/A PRASUL’S…………………………..APPLICANT VERSUS STEELCORD TYRES LTD…………………….. DEFENDANT RULING This is an application by the plaintiff for summary judgment under order 35 Civil Procedure Rules.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 767 OF 1987 CITY SERVICE STATION……............….……….. APPLICANT VERSUS JAMRECK PETER NJUGUNA …...………...… RESPONDENT RULING This is an application by the defendant in the suit that the ex-parte judgment entered against him on 25/2/88 be set aside on the grounds that he was never served with summons to enter appearance and that he does not owe the plaintiff the sum claimed.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 767 OF 1987 CITY SERVICE STATION……............….……….. APPLICANT VERSUS JAMRECK PETER NJUGUNA …...………...… RESPONDENT RULING This is an application by the defendant in the suit that the ex-parte judgment entered against him on 25/2/88 be set aside on the grounds that he was never served with summons to enter appearance and that he does not owe the plaintiff the sum claimed.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 2408 OF 1987 MT KENYA SAFARI CLUB LTD....................PLAINTIFF VERSUS MUKAWA (HOTELS)HOLDINGS LTD............DEFENDANT RULING April 6, 1989 Rauf J delivered the following Ruling. It was agreed between the learned counsel for the parties that the issue No 2 in the draft issues annexed to the summons for direction be argued first in order that the claim for general damages in the plaint could be determined accordingly.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 2100 OF 1987 JEREMIAH KAMAU GITAU & 2 OTHERS...........................PLAINTIFF VERSUS WANDAI & 5 OTHERS.........................................................DEFENDANT