Judgment[1989] KEHC 2
Maathai v Kenya Times Media Trust 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 Appeal
made under Order VI rule 13. Mr Ombaka said the reference to the order was unnecessary because it related to summary procedure.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
made under Order VI rule 13. Mr Ombaka said the reference to the order was unnecessary because it related to summary procedure.
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 Appeal
That evidence so far as it was adduced by the respondent fell foul of the requirements of rule 5 of Order 75: it failed to establish that the appellant was “the relevant “person”. The upshot of that is that the High Court did not have admiralty jurisdiction and the respondent was not entitled to invoke that jurisdiction.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (Coram: Gachuhi, Nyarangi & Gicheru JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 16 OF 1989 MAKALA MAILU MUMENDE ........................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS NYALI GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB....................................DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Editorial Note Section 3(1) of the Judicature Act was erroneously cited as section 3(3) in the original judgment. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Nyarangi, Masime & Kwach JJA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 29 OF 1989 ALITALIA AIRLINES ...........................APPELLANT VERSUS SHAKA ZULU ASSEGAI....................RESPONDENT
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 Appeal
Ako v Special District Commissioner Kisumu & another (Civil Appeal 27 of 1989) [1989] KECA 50 (KLR) (19 June 1989) (Judgment) Ako v Special District Commissioner Kisumu & another [1989]eKLR Neutral citation: [1989] KECA 50 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL 27 OF 1989 JO NYARANGI, JM GACHUHI, JJA & RO KWACH, AG. JA JUNE 19, 1989 BETWEEN AKO ............................................................................................................
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: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL SUIT NO 496 OF 1988 RANDU NZAU ……………..…………….….. APPLICANT VERSUS MBUNI TRANSPORT CO LTD…....….…..
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 Appeal
the learned Senior Resident Magistrate ruled that the summons had been properly served under Order https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1989/51/eng@1989-03-14 4 V Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules and dismissed the application. The appellant’s appeal against that ruling was similarly heard and dismissed by the High Court hence this second appeal.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
property ie Nairobi (Block 106 /242 (House No 203) until the determination of this suit or further orders of this court. Costs of this application to be costs in the cause.