Judgment[1994] KECA 117
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
prospective petitioner is to strictly adhere to and observe the rules prescribed in the procedure in order to be able to enjoy the rights to which he is entitled under the Constitution. So if the petitioner has failed to meet any obligation which happens to be of a mandatory nature then it will equally defeat the purpose of the Constitution and the Act if the breach of the mandatory obligation is viewed with a blind eye.
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: Nyarangi, Gachuhi & Apaloo JJA ) CIVIL APPEAL NO 4 OF 1984 BETWEEN CHEGE KIMOTHO & OTHERS............................................ APPELLANT AND MARIA VESTERS & ANOTHER.................................................RESPONDENT (Appeal from Judgment/Decree of the High Court at Nairobi, Cockar J)