Judgment[1990] KEHC 62
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CriminalCriminal Appeal
stated that the owner of the lorry to show cause why maize and lorry should not be forfeited, that order did not preclude the owner of the maize to appear if he was not the owner of the lorry, and claim his maize. The appellants aware of that order as it was made in their presence at the sitting in which the court had convicted them and during the continuation of the same proceedings as it is apparent from the Court record of the proceedings of that day.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
the learned Senior Resident Magistrate ruled that the summons had been properly served under Order https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/1989/51/eng@1989-03-14 4 V Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules and dismissed the application. The appellant’s appeal against that ruling was similarly heard and dismissed by the High Court hence this second appeal.