Judgment[1995] KECA 2
Kaittany & another v Wamaitha
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
was not a party to the suit in the superior court; and the learned trial judge’s error in making orders regarding the burial of the deceased which were incapable of performance. In regard to the foregoing grounds of appeal, counsel for the appellants, Miss Abida Ali who appeared with Miss Betty Murungi, submitted that the fact that the deceased became apostate did not dissolve his marriage to the rst appellant as there was no evidence that that fact was communicated to her.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Gachuhi, Omolo & Lakha JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 139 OF 1989 BETWEEN DANIEL M. NJAI ............................APPELLANT AND HIGH VIEW FARM LTD...................RESPONDENT GEORGE N.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Gicheru, Kwach & Tunoi, JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 14 OF 1989 Between MAINA KANIARU..........................................APPELLANT JANE WAHITO...............................................APPELLANT AND JOSEPHAT M. WANG'ONDU.........................RESPONDENT (An appeal from the judgment of Hon Mr Justice Mbogholi-Msagha delivered on 18th March, 1988 in HCCC No 2556 of 1986) **************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
matter than the appellate tribunal can be; and the appellate tribunal will generally defer to the conclusion which the trial judge has formed”. LORD WRIGHT, in the course of his speech at p.265, said: “Two principles are beyond controversy.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
13 (1) (a) is concerned is correct . But the plaintiff’s application in the superior court was based on Order V1 rule13(1) without specifying any of the particular grounds (a), (b) (c) or (d) of sub-rule (1).
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Gachuhi, Akiwumi & Lakha JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO 116 OF 1987 Between FRANCIS WAINAINA ....................................................APPELLANT AND KENYA COMMERCIAL FINANCE CO. LTD...............RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Lady Justice Aluoch) dated 25th day of February, 1987 in HCCC No 2539 of 1981) ********************* JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appellant won a contract to supply Kenya Breweries with
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gicheru, Kwach & Cockar JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 37 OF 1991 BETWEEN SHARMA.............................................................................................APPELLANT AND HANDA T/A K.A.HANDA SECONDARY SCHOOLS...................RESPONDENT (Appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Meru (Mr Justice Samuel Odhiambo Oguk) dated 26th November 1990, in Civil Case No 42 of 1986) *******************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
The judge considered a number of letters exchanged between the proprietors and came to the conclusion that they constituted a memorandum or note within the meaning of section 3 of the Act and accordingly binding on the appellants. The first is a letter dated 16th July 1981 from the first appellant to SK Koinange in which he said: “Dear (Mr) Koinange Sale of Plot No 710/17/Mombasa Mr Solomon Murugu has shown me the sale agreement documents for Shs 550,000/-.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi, Omolo & Akiwumi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO. KARIUKI ……………….................................…………….……………….APPELLANT AND HON.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram: Gachuhi,Cockar & Omolo JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 55 OF 1986 BETWEEN NGORORO...............................................................................APPELLANT AND NDUTHA & ANOTHER.....................................................RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the ruling of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi of the Chief Justice the Honourable Mr Justice Simpson delivered on 9th August, 1985) in HCCC No 3350 of 1984) *********************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
as if their action had been begun by filing a plaint. According to him, the provisions of rule 10 of order XXXVI of the Rules had been brought to the attention of the judge and since a claim by adverse possession must only be brought through an Originating Summons, if the issues therein were disputed, the superior court should have dealt with the matter as if the same had been begun by filing a plaint.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (CORAM: PALL J.A (IN CHAMBERS) CIVIL APPLICATION NO. NAI 372 OF 1996 BETWEEN DAVID KONGO .......................................................
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
When the application came before Aluoch J ex parte on 25th April 1994, she declined to grant the orders sought by the Mayor and directed that all the defendants be served as the matter was of some general public interest. She adjourned the application to 26th April 1994 for hearing inter partes.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI ( Coram:Cockar, Muli & Tunoi JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 76 OF 1986 BETWEEN BERNARD KIARIE....................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS THUKU NJOROGE................................................................RESPONDENT (Being an appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Mr Justice William Mbaya) dated 17th October, 1985 in HCC No 2153 of 1979) *****************************
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
prospective petitioner is to strictly adhere to and observe the rules prescribed in the procedure in order to be able to enjoy the rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution. So if the petitioner has failed to meet any obligation which happens to be of a mandatory nature then it will equally defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the Act if the breach of the mandatory obligation is viewed with a blind eye.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
ceased to be an asset of Stones Limited. Hence, the respondent had no basis for seeking the orders contained in his application for an interlocutory injunction.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
There was no evidence of service of the order 2. Neither the order nor the notice of motion nor any other notice in connection therewith that was served carried an indorsement of penal obligation or consequence.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Gicheru, Muli & Tunoi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 33 OF 1993 GATEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ….....….….APPELLANT VERSUS PAUL KAMAU WAITHAKA …….……………….………RESPONDENT (Appeal from the Ruling and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi of the Honourable Mr Justice Tank dated 29th April, 1992 in High Court Civil Case No 670 of 1992)
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionCivil Appeal
company and that the respondents would hold the Deed Plan, when released, to the Order of the Acceptances. As this letter is also relevant in the negotiations, I reproduce it’s contents hereunder:- “East African Acceptances Ltd Stanbank House Nairobi Dear Sirs, Galot Industries Ltd Purchase of LR Nos 1337 and 1338/2.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Apaloo CJ, Kwach, Cockar, Omolo & Tunoi JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 145 OF 1990 TROUISTIK UNION INTERNATIONAL INGRID URSULA HEINZ …………………….….… APPELLANTS VERSUS JANE MBEYU ALICE MBEYU ………………………………..….. RESPONDENTS (Appeal from a Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Kenya at Mombasa (Mr Justice Bosire) dated 17th October, 1989 in HCCC No 172 of 1987)