Judgment[1994] KECA 94
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA ( Coram: Gachuhi, Muli & Tunoi JJ A ) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 1993 BETWEEN VICTORIA DE MEO..............................................................APPELLANT AND 1.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 56 OF 1989 PETER WAMBUA T/A NEW TAWA TYRE TRADING ………….….........………….. PLANTIFF VERSUS RETAIL HARDWARE & SANITARY STORES LTD & ANOTHER…………………..….
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 89 OF 1989 MICAHEL MUTUA KIEMA ……….....………….… PLAINTIFF VERSUS HAGGINSON MALINDI MWANGEMI GITAL CONSTRUCTION CO LTD ………….....
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 678 OF 1990 MARY WANJIRU GACHII ……………….……… APPLICANT VERSUS KENYA BUS SERVICES (MSA) LTD…………. RESPONDENT RULING This is an application for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of an intended appeal.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 823 OF 1991 MATHIGU………...…… APPLICANT VERSUS MWAURA……..…………. DEBTOR RULING This is an application by the objector to the attachment of motor vehicle KXK 245 in execution of the decree in this suit.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA Civil Case 842 of 1988 JOHN KAMUNYU MURIGI…………..…..….....………………..PLAINTIFF - versus - PIRI MWATATA TEITEI…………...…..………...……….1ST DEFENDANT LAND REGISTRAR – KILIFI…………………....……...2ND DEFENDANT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 381 OF 1989 MARIAM ABDSHEIKH D/O SALIM ABDSHEIKH .…..........….PLAINTIFF VERSUS CHARLES KENNEDY WANYA FRANCIS ONSERIC ……………………………………..RESPONDENTS
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 484 OF 1989 WALTER OBARA OGOL ………………….…. PLAINTIFF VERSUS NOAH MBUGUA NJOROGE……….……RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 151 OF 1993 BACCHUS GROCERS LTD …………….……..PLAINTIFF VERSUS CRATER AUTOMOBILE (NRB) LTD …...…..DEFENDANT RULING The dispute between the parties herein relates to a contract for sale by the defendant to the plaintiff of a new Mitsubishi Fusso lorry. It is the plaintiff’s case that on the 20th February, 1993 the defendant offered to sell to him the vehicle whose details are well described by way of a vehicle order 075, and that he acc
Division and case type: GeneralUnclassified
REPUBLIC OF KENYA Ahmed v Republic High Court, at Mombasa Mbaluto J December 14, 1992, Mbaluto J delivered the following Ruling. The applicant was convicted in the court below of causing death by obstruction contrary to section 46 of the Traffic Act.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 368 OF 1992 HABIB BANK LIMITED..........................PLAINTIFF VERSUS MOHAMED SHARIFF HASSAN..........DEFENDANT RULING In the suit (as pleaded in the plaint) the plaintiff claims from the defendant a sum of Shs 760,322/65 alleged to be the debit balance of the amount due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff as at 16th April, 1992. This is alleged to be in respect of the bank loan or an overdraft reflected on the defe
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CIVIL CASE NO 649 OF 1991 AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION...........................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS CONTAINER FREIGHTERS CO LTD................................RESPONDENT RULING This application for summary judgment is brought by way of a notice of motion under order 35 rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks an order that summary judgment be entered for the plaintiff, Agricultural Development Corporat
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