Judgment[2008] KEHC 239
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: Milimani Commercial CourtsCivil Suit
conduct of the defendant’s representatives could not excuse the failure to comply with the unless order the pleading had property been struck out.” The general principle is that orders of the court must be obeyed and a litigant who deliberately and without proper excuse disobeys such an order is not allowed to proceed. Singh Gitau for the Respondent did not come to court to argue his client’s position.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
decision of Lakha, J.A., a learned single judge of this Court, to seek to vary, discharge or reverse his order by the Court under the provisions of rule 54 (2) of the Rules. Oraro has submitted that the respondent having not chosen any of those options he cannot now challenge the consent order which he has not attempted to have set aside.
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 Case
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAIROBI CIVIL CASE NO. 3490 OF 1987 M A……………………………………..…………………PLAINTIFF VERSUS HILTON INTERNATIONAL (K) LTD …........….….1ST DEFENDANT M A……………………………………..….…..….2ND DEFENDANT RULING Mrs M A, the plaintiff in this case, is a very angry woman.
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