Judgment[2005] KEHC 600
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 371 of 2003 ECON CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING LIMITED………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS GIRO COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED………...……………..1ST DEFENDANT WAITHAKA MWANGI………………………..…………..……..2ND DEFENDANT R U L I N G The 1st defendant has moved this court, by Notice of Motion dated 13th July 2005, brought under 0XXXIX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The 1st defendant seeks an
Division and case type: FamilySuccession Cause
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU Succession Cause 500 of 1997 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE KIBOWEN KOMEN WILLIAM KIPROP KOMEN………………………………. …….PETITIONER VERSUS RACHEL KIPNGENO KOMEN………….……………………..… OBJECTOR RULING The applicant herein, Agrisup Limited, filed an application by way of a chamber summons under the provisions of Sections 47, 51, 66, 74, 83 and 86 of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 and Rules 7(d), 16 and 49 of Probate and Administration Rules.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI Civil Case 1020 of 2002 ALUTA HOLDINGS LTD………………………..………………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS RAJ PARMAR……………………………………………………..…DEFENDANT RULING In this application (by chamber summons dated 7th October, 2005) the Defendant, RAJ PARMAR, seeks an order that the Plaintiff, ALUTA HOLDINGS LTD, do serve the Defendant particulars of the plaint as requested for in the request for particulars filed on 22nd July, 2005. The Defenda
Division and case type: CivilCivil Suit
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS Civil Suit 1175 of 2005 ADAM THUMI…………………………………………………………….. PLAINTIFF VERSUS MAINA KIRIRO………………………………………...……………… DEFENDANT RULING This Ruling is made in the Chamber Summons application dated 22nd September 2005 brought under Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsMiscellaneous Application
factors or to omit to consider relevant factors, and according to the Advocates Remuneration Order itself, some of the relevant factors to take into account include the nature and importance of the course or matter, the amount or value of the subject matter involved, the interest of the parties, the general conduct of the proceedings and any direction by the trial judge." In this case, the applicant has faulted the taxing officer for failing to take into account the sum which was awarded by t