Judgment[1990] KECA 25
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF KENYA AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPEAL 18 OF 89 Munga Concrete Works Ltd.......................appellant v Industrial Development Bank Ltd..............respondent Judgment. The background facts giving rise to this appeal can be stated briefly.
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 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: CriminalCriminal Appeal
Parliament until 1979, when he lost his seat; who would pay them Kshs 36,000 for carrying out that order which was described as ‘the work’. If the prosecution case was accepted there could be no question but that Charles and the second appellant were to be armed with guns when they went to arrest Tenai.
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?