Search court decisions

…Before the commencement of the hearing of this suit, the parties produced before us, by consent, the Deed as exhibit 1, a bundle of correspondence as exhibit 2 and yet another bundle of correspondence with the Chief Kadhi…

…The hearing proceeded ex parte because neither the defendants nor their advocates appeared. Nor was there any explanation as to their nonattendance.…

…He, therefore, went to see a dentist on the morning of the hearing date with the result that he was not able to attend. That ground was given much later after this application had been filed.…

…restraining the defendants whether by themselves individually or collectively or by their servants or agents from selling and transferring any of their shares in a company known as Umoja Enterprises Limited pending the hearing…

…Applying these principles to the present application and upon a full examination of the pleadings, the affidavits filed in support and in opposition and the annexures thereto and after hearing the viva voce testimony of the…

….…...RESPONDENT RULING The Notice of Motion application which came for hearing was filed in court on 23rd March 1988. Exparte orders had been granted to the applicant on 7/3/88.…

…It was the inter-parte hearing which came before me.…

…RESPONDENT RULING This is an application for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal. It is made under O XLI rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules.…

…COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO 772 OF 1984 AURORA BAKING COMPANY (1975) LTD………………PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT AND PHENNTHA WANINGI AND 3 OTHERS………….DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS RULING By an order of this court dated 19.11.84 the hearing…

…should have gone to the Deputy Registrar of this court in regard to the plaintiff/applicant’s application file din this court on 13.11.84 when by the order of this court dated 19.11.84 the said application was coming up for hearing…

….…..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…

…The order sought having been granted on the ex parte application a hearing inter partes of the same was fixed for 4th May 1989 when the preliminary objection was taken as stated above.…

…Following interpartes hearing of that injunction application interlocutory injunction was issued on 17th September 2003 pending the determination of this suit.…

…Once that injunction was granted the plaintiff took no action either in undertaking discovery or in setting down the suit for hearing.…

…The suit came for hearing on three different occasions, thereafter, but was on each occasion adjourned for one reason or another.…

…It was called and was listed to come for hearing on 9th and 10th May, 1989. On 9th May 1989 the suit was called.…

…The main ground upon which the application has been based is that they were not served with a hearing notice informing them of the date of trial. This suit was fixed to come for a hearing on 2nd March, 1989.…

…Consequently it became necessary to issue and serve upon them a hearing notice.…

…I am not hearing the Review application. I will, therefore, resist thetemptation to go into the merits. I must stress however, that litigations musthave their final end.…

…However, where such a Judge is nolonger attached to the Court the review may be heard by any other Judgeattached to the court at the time it is called up for hearing.…

…Mr PL Otieno who appeared for the defendants in the application before me also submitted that no hearing notice was given to the 2nd defendants for the hearing on 9th December, 1987.…

…He refused to sign the hearing notice and attached to the return of service is a hearing notice which clearly informed the 2nd defendant that the case had been set for hearing on the 9th December, 1987 at 8.30 am.…

…Thereafter the suit became ripe for hearing but no date for that purpose appears to have been fixed.…

…That application was listed for hearing on April 14, 1983.…

…When this case came up for hearing on the 10.5.99, the advocate for the defendant stated he did not bring his witnesses to court. The reasons being that the parties were negotiating on out of court settlement.…

…The parties were given time to verify their facts and to return to court to either record a settlement or to continue with hearing. After adjournment the hearing proceeded on 10.5.99 and adjourned to 11.5.99.…

…The defendants did not appear in court on the day of the hearing, though their advocate on record Messrs Macharia and Njore, advocates of Thika, were served with a hearing notice.…

…A copy of a hearing notice was produced in court, showing that they had received it and affixed their stamp at the back.…

…XVI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, on the ground that the plaintiff had since the close of the pleadings taken no steps in the matter to set down the suit for hearing.…

…XVI Rule 5 are restated:- “If within three months after: - (a) the close of the pleadings … the plaintiff does not set down the suit for hearing, the defendant may either set the suit down for hearing or apply for its dismissal…

…At the hearing of the application only the alternative prayer was pursued.…

…The issue of bank guarantee is not a new one as it featured during hearing of the application for stay. It was common ground that a bank guarantee automatically expires after a year and would have to be renewed.…

…That the first Defendant be restrained by itself, its agents or servants from appointing the second Defendant, Thorncliff Limited as its Agent in Kenya pending the hearing and determination of this application. 3.…

…That the first Defendant be restrained by itself, its agents or servants from appointing the second Defendant, Thorncliff Limited, as its Agent in Kenya pending hearing and determination of this suit. 6.…

…The Defendant’s were duly served with a hearing notice but did not attend court for the hearing which therefore proceeded ex-parte.…