Judgment[2003] KEHC 938
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Constitutional and Human RightsElection Petition
Appeal went to great lengths to examine the relevant authorities and I totally agree with their conclusion on that issue. However in this case in considering the legal effect of the Act and the rules and particularly sections 14 (1) (a) and 14 (2) the provisions of the Interpretation and General Provisions Act (cap 2) set out namely section 24 and section 33 were not considered.
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.