Judgment[1989] KEHC 93
Masulal Maganlal Rawal v Maneklal Maganlal Rawal
High Court at Mombasa
Case law
Search tips: "exact phrase" · -exclude · land | property · negligen* · citations like [2023] KEHC 123
Division and case type: CivilCivil Case
d/o Umedram Bhagwan Pandya, (Mena) he thereby waived his right to rely on limitation under Order XXIII Civil Procedure Rules, by dint of the provisions of section 39 (1)(b) of the Limitation of Actions Act. In his view estoppel can be raised in limine, and urged me to hold that the defendant is estopped from relying on limitation under Order XXIII Civil Procedure Rules, a defence he had waived.
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram: Kneller, Nyarangi, JJ A and Gachuhi, Ag J A) CIVIL APPEAL 5 OF 1984 BETWEEN BAKSHISH SINGH & BROTHERS ………….………...............…………….. APPELLANTS AND PANAFRIC HOTELS LIMITED ………..…………….....................…………..
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI (Coram:Kneller JA) CIVIL APPLICATION NO NAI 33 OF 1984 BETWEEN GEOFFREY NDUNG’U THEURI ……………APPLICANT AND LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA…………………..RESPONDENT (In an intended appeal from the High Court at Nairobi, Porter J) RULING Geoffrey Ndung’u Theuri, the applicant, by an ex parte motion on notice filed by July 31, 1984 under rule 112 of the Court of Appeal Rules (cap 9), moves that the court by orders directs that his intended appeal may be lodged without prior payment
Division and case type: CivilMiscellaneous Application
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL AT NAIROBI CIVIL APPLICATION NO NAI 16 OF 1984 (In the matter of an intended appeal) BETWEEN KENYA CASEMENTS LIMITED…………………………………………........................APPLICANT AND IDEAL CASEMENTS LIMITED………………………………………..........................RESPONDENT (Appliation for stay of execution pending an intended appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi (Porter, J) dated 23rd November, 1983 in High Court Civil Case No 2719 of 1983 (O.S RULING During
Division and case type: CivilCivil Appeal
ORDER Mr Khanna, for the appellants, by a motion on notice of February 2, 1984, expressed to be brought under rules 42 and 96 of the Court of Appeal Rules, asks this court to substitute as a party to the appeal in place of the late second appellant, Ajit Gurbaksh Singh, either Harbans Kaur, the widow, or one or both of the named executors of the deceased’s will who are Amrik Singh Gurbaksh Singh and Joginder Singh Gurbaksh Singh, the third and fifth appellants, and the hearing of the appeal