Judgment[1989] KEHC 93
Masulal Maganlal Rawal v Maneklal Maganlal Rawal
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
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 60 OF 1989 BETWEEN DAVID MAINA...................................................... APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC.............................................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 364 OF 1989 BETWEEN MALINGI KATANA MALINGI................................. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC................................................................RESPONDENT
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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT MOMBASA (Coram: Masime, J.A., Gicheru & Kwach, Ag. JJ.A.) CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
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”.
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.