Search court decisions

…He is a third party as far as the land is concerned having not been party to whatever fraud the defendant alleges against the plaintiff’s father. Moreover, the decision of the elders is unenforceable.…

…It follows that we nd no merit in the appellant’s persistence in challenging the nding that he was involved in the fraud. 4. It remains, however, to make one clarication.…

…There also must be a knowledge on the appellant’s part of such fraud. From the evidence before the Court and the submission used – the petition of appeal does not question the fakeness of the dollars.…

…From the evidence of PW1 no fraud on the part of the Appellant is shown. PW1further admits Appellant had his permission to use the items while in his employment.…

…That the consent entered into herein is binding on the parties as there is no suggestion or allegation of fraud or collusion and or mistake. 13.…

…In the case of Brooke Bond Liebig (T) Ltd v Maliya (1975) EA 266 it was held inter alia that a consent judgment may only be set aside for fraud, collusion or for any other reason which would enable the court to set aside…

…It follows that we nd no merit in the appellant’s persistence in challenging the nding that he was involved in the fraud. 4. It remains, however, to make one clarication.…

…Charges of fraud should not be lightly made or considered. Mason v Clarke [1955] AC 778, 794: Bradford Building Society v Borders, [1941] 2 All ER 205.…

…Whether there is an evidence to support an allegation of fraud is a question of fact. Ludgater v Love (1881), 44 LT 694 (CA). Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol 26 Third Ed, (1959) page 845, para 1572.…

…It is sad, perhaps, that, under section 143 (1) of the Registered Land Act cap 300 no order can be made to rectify a first registration on the ground of fraud or mistake, but that is irrelevant to the question which we have…

…He stated that the suit properties do not belong to the Petitioner and thus it was trying to obtain court orders by fraud.…

…He stated that the suit properties do not belong to the Petitioner and thus it was trying to obtain court orders by fraud.…

…He stated that the suit properties do not belong to the Petitioner and thus it was trying to obtain court orders by fraud.…