We use strictly necessary cookies to run the site. With your consent we also use performance cookies to understand how the site is used. Read the cookie policy.
Court decisions & case law | Wakili Link
Case law
Search court decisions
5,723 judgments, rulings and orders · latest 23 July 2026
Search tips:"exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Civil·Case number Civil Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA COURT OF APPEAL IN KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPLICATION 323 OF 2009 CFC FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED................................APPLICANT AND JUJA ROAD FANCY STORE LIMITED............................RESPONDENT (An application for extension of time within which to lodge the record of appeal from the ruling and order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Hon. Lady Justice Khaminwa) dated 6th February 2009 in H.C.C.C.
that the learned trial Judge improperly exercised his discretion in declining to set aside his order dismissing the appellants case and the ex parte judgement. In the result we allow the appeal, set aside both the ex parte order of dismissal and he ex parte judgement on the counterclaim and order that the claim and the counterclaim do proceed to hearing in the superior court.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Apaloo, Masime JJA & Gicheru Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 12 OF 1987 BETWEEN CHEGE.......................................................... APPELLANT AND SULEIMAN...................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal against the ruling of the High Court at Nairobi, Kwach CA) RULING July 13, 1988, Apaloo, Masime JJA & Gicheru Ag JA delivered the following Ruling.
Madede & another v Fita & 2 others (Civil Appeal 4 of 1986) [1988] KECA 108 (KLR) (12 April 1988) (Judgment) Madede & another v Ainea Fita & 2 others [1988] eKLR Neutral citation: [1988] KECA 108 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU CIVIL APPEAL 4 OF 1986 JO NYARANGI, JM GACHUHI & FK APALOO, JJA APRIL 12, 1988 BETWEEN MADEDE & ANOTHER & ANOTHER ............................................... APPELLANT AND AINEA FITA ............................................................
and Mr Jayantilal Shah of that firm took over his defence. He applied on October 11, 1982 for an order that his firm should cease to act for the defendant because it could get no further instructions in the suit from the defendant which the defendant said he had not alternative but to accept and it was all right if the firm did not wish to represent him.