Judgment[1993] KECA 57
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Anti-CorruptionCivil Appeal
company and that the respondents would hold the Deed Plan, when released, to the Order of the Acceptances. As this letter is also relevant in the negotiations, I reproduce it’s contents hereunder:- “East African Acceptances Ltd Stanbank House Nairobi Dear Sirs, Galot Industries Ltd Purchase of LR Nos 1337 and 1338/2.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
This is one of the exceptions to the general rule that a party against whom an ex parte order has been made, can apply to the Court which made the order to set it aside. The Court of Appeal in England in the case of Cozens v North Devon Hospital Management Committee [1966] 2 All ER 799, held that althought it was a general principle in regard to ex parte orders that the party affected by the order could apply for it to be discharged, yet it would be contrary to the intention of the Limitatio
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT KISUMU Criminal Appeal 7 of 1991 JOSHUA LIYAYI MUSUNGU ……….....……….. APPELLANT AND REPUBLIC ………..………………………….… RESPONDENT (Appeal from a sentence of the High Court of Kenya Kakamega (Mr Justice Osiemo) dated 15th October, 1990, In H.C.CR.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
Court for want of prosecution be set aside. The learned judge while setting aside the dismissal order declined an application for leave to appeal without assigning any reasons.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
Mangi v Munyiri & another Court of Appeal, at Nairobi August 1, 1991 Masime, Cockar & Muli JJ A Civil Appeal No 143 of 1990 (Appeal from the Judgment and Decree of the High Court at Nairobi, Mr Justice Shields J, dated 9th November 1989 in HCCC No 1413 of 1989) Equity - equitable remedies - specific performance - matters the courts will consider in granting such remedy. Land Law - sale of land - rescission of an agreement for sale on account of the purchaser failing to complete the transaction
Division and case type: CriminalCase number Criminal Application
Imanyara v Republic High Court, at Nairobi May 9, 1991 Porter J Criminal Application No 190 of 1991 Criminal Practice and Procedure – bail –renewed application for bail – whether a rehearing of a previous bail application . Criminal Practice and Procedure – bail – whether an applicant is entitled to apply for bail as many times as he can – section 123(3) Criminal Procedure Code.
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
power to make nor was there any appeal from the order for possession for reconstruction. The time to consider whether there was to be a true reconstruction was when the Tribunal made its order of February 9, 1976.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT KISUMU (Coram: Platt, Apaloo JJA & Masime Ag JA) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 170 OF 1986 BETWEEN OKONG’O...........................................................................APPELLANT AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOTHER..............................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYAAT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE No. 1271 OF 1979 SYAN..................................................................APPELLANT VERSUS SUNSET HOTEL LTD...................................RESPONDENT
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL NO. 31 OF 1987 VIRGINIA EDITH WAMBUI OTIENO..…….………APPLICANT VERSUS JOASH OUGO & ANOTHER………….…......…RESPONDENT RULING.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
What, today, is the correct approach of a court to an application for summary judgment under order XXXV rule 1 where there is a claim on a note and the defence is a set-off or counterclaim? Should the payment due on it be held up until the trial of the set-off or counterclaim has been heard?