Search court decisions

….…...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.…

…The motion was fixed for hearing on 17th November, 1993, but on account of some confusion of the hearing date on the part of the Corporation’s advocates the hearing could not proceed on that date.…

…The motion was then fixed for hearing for 1st December 1993.…

…They took the hearing dates of 25th and 26th June, by consent.…

…Wamalwa's clerk obtained a date for the hearing of the chamber summons. That date was 6th February, 1996. On this date counsel for both the parties appeared before Bosire, J.…

…The learned former Chief Justice, Simpson J as he then was, following a full hearing gave judgment on 25th May, 1979, in which he ordered that on receipt from the appellant of a sum of Kshs 1750/- the 1st respondent was to…

…completely overlooked the fact that on 31st July, 1984, Mr Mutungi also, who was then representing the appellant, had raised the matter of these two issues by way of preliminary objections before Masime, J, who was at that time hearing…

…It was ordered that the application be heard inter-partes on August 10 1988, on which date after the hearing inter-partes, the High court ordered that the ex parte order do remain in force and that the hearing interpartes…

…At the commencement of the hearing inter partes, Mr Alibhai for the defendants, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that as the appellant firm was under receivership, its directors could not bring an action against…

…The usual rule is that an injunction is granted to preserve the subject-matter pending the hearing and the determination of the action so that the rights if any of an appellant are safeguarded to prevent the appeal, if successful…

…However, an issue that arose during the hearing of the appeal and which has been considered at some length in the judgments of my Lords Shah and Bosire, is whether the learned judge of the superior court was right when, upon…

…The suit came for a hearing on 8th May, 1995 before Ringera, J. The appellant was the only witness who testified in support of the plaintiff's case.…

…When the suit came up for hearing before Shields J. on 6th November, 1990 Mr. Lakha (as he then was) appearing with Mr.…

…When the suit came up for hearing proper for the first time the defendant took a preliminary point (objection in limine) that plaint did not disclose a cause of action.…

…At the hearing of this appeal, there were two other interested parties who appeared by advocates and who wished to be heard.…

…This Court on the conclusion of the hearing arrived at the unanimous decision which was delivered under rule 32(5) of the Rules of this Court allowing the appeal with costs and setting aside the orders made by the Election…

…(Inote that during the hearing of this case the defendant wasrepresented by Mr.…

…that “this court has the jurisdiction to entertain this claim in rem” on the basis of assumptions or inferences in favour of the plainti when such assumptions or inferences were not only not canvassed before him on the hearing…