Judgment[1989] KECA 48
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
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 NAIROBI (Coram: Platt Ja, Gachuhi & Kwach Ag JJ A) CIVIL APPEAL NO 7 OF 1988 MUTHIKE........................................................APPELLANT VERSUS KENYA FILM CORPORATION LTD...............RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Hancox JA, Chesoni & Platt Ag JJA) CIVIL APPEAL NO 34 OF 1982 KEMFRO AFRICA LIMITED T/A “MERU EXPRESS SERVICES (1976)” & ANOTHER …………….…..…………….APPLICANT VERSUS OLIVE LUBIA & ANOTHER ………….....…..RESPONDENT RULING When this appeal was called on for hearing, Mr Kwach, appearing on behalf of the two respondents, took the preliminary objection that the mandatory provisions of Rule 85 (1) (f) of rules of this court had not been complied with, in that none o