Judgment[1992] KEHC 119
Dola v Attorney General
High Court at Mombasa
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Dola v Attorney General High Court, at Mombasa August 27, 1992 Omolo J Civil Case No. 327 of 1989 August 27, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Judgment.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Jefa v Kenya Ports Authority High Court, at Mombasa June 9, 1992 Omolo J Civil Case No. 721 of 1988 June 9, 1992,Omolo J delivered the following Judgment.
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Civil Application
defence to the action in the Magistrate’s Court and in his defence he raised a counterclaim. Under order VIII rule 2 the applicant was entitled to file his defence and to raise the counterclaim in the same defence.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Kinji Ltd & Another v Kogo & Another High Court, at Mombasa March 31, 1992 Omolo J Civil Case No. 938 of 1991 March 31, 1992, Omolo J delivered the following Ruling.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Farrah v Kenya Ports Authority Court of Appeal, at Mombasa ` March 16, 1992 Hancox CJ, Gachuhi, Cockar JJ A Civil Appeal No. 138 of 1991 March 16, 1992, Hancox CJ, delivered the following Judgment.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Losiamuro v Lochab Brothers & another High Court, at Mombasa December 30, 1991 Wambilyangah J Civil Case No 48 of 1988
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
N Wasike v Destimo Wamboko (1982-1988) KAR 625 where it was said that a consent judgment or order has the contractual effect and can only be set aside on those grounds which would justify the setting of a contract. Those grounds are such as fraud, mistake or misrepresentation.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Njoroge v Prestige Air Services Ltd High Court, at Mombasa August 15, 1991 Wambilyangah J Civil Case No 204 of 1990 Civil Practice and Procedure – setting aside - default judgment – judgment in default of defence – discretion to set aside such judgment – principles on which this discretion is exercised – where delay in filing defence was out of the defendant’s advocate’s mistake – whether justice required that default judgment be set aside in such a case. The plaintiff applied
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Southern Oil Supplies Co Ltd v SGS Kenya Ltd High Court, at Mombasa February 5, 1991 Wambilyangah J Civil Case No 724 of 1985 Civil Practice and Procedure - security for costs – court’s discretion in making an order for security – order XXV rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules - section 401 Companies Act - onus of proof in an applicaton for security for costs. The defendants brought ann application seeking security for costs under Order XXV rule 1 and section 401 of the Compani
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 1124 OF 1983 KIMEU…………….........…………….. PLAINTIFF VERSUS KASESE…………………..…………DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 30 OF 1986 LYDIA CHAO …………………………………………..……… PLAINTIFF VERSUS DHANJAL BROTHERS LTD MUNGA MUHASO HASSAN ISMAEL ABDALLA PAUL WAMBUA MUSILA……………………...................DEFENDANTS
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 842 OF 1983 FATEMI INVESTMENTS LTD…..…………. PLAINTIFF VERSUS BAYUSUF……………..………………….DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (CORAM: NYARANGI, GACHUHI & MASIME JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 59 OF 1986 JIWA……………………………..……….. APPELLANT VERSUS JIWA & ANOTHER………...………… RESPONDENTS (Appeal from the Ruling/Order of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Rauf J) dated 15th July, 1985 in Civil Case No 851 of 1985)
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 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 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”.