Search court decisions

…According to him, the Plaintiff’s application was aimed at defeating their claim which they had acquired by operation of law. When the application came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the Applicant Mr.…

…This is not an application for a mandatory injunction, it is one brought under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act.…

…In the present application, the applicant was previously charged with the same offence before the Chief Magistrate’s Court Nakuru before the proceedings were terminated and then transferred to the Naivasha Chief Magistrate…

…I allow the application as a consequence of which I will set aside the order on bail by the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Naivasha. I will substitute the same with an appropriate order of this court.…

…The application came for hearing before Khamoni, J on the 10th April, 1990, and in a reserved ruling delivered on the 17th April, 1990, the learned judge dismissed the application with costs.…

…the application was incompetent.…

…REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2004 (From original conviction and sentence in Criminal Case No. 3160 of 2003 of the Principal Magistrate’s Court at NAIVASHA) HOSEA KIBIWOTT…

…The application was not opposed by the prosecution.…

….……....RESPONDENT RULING The Memorandum of appeal was filed on 21st October, 2009 simultaneously with application for stay of execution.…

…On 9th March, 2011, the respondent in the appeal brought the present application for orders that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution for the reason that ten months (at the time of filing of this application) had…

…The application was supported by an affidavit sworn by Terry C.…

…The petitioner, William Kiprop Komen opposed the application and filed an affidavit sworn on 18th May, 2004.…

…The application was based on the supporting affidavit of Esther J. Keror filed on 11.11.2013 and the grounds set out in the application as follows: 1.…

…The application is tailored at buying time for the applicant and thus is an abuse of court process. 2.…

…The application is supported by affidavits sworn by ATUL SHAH dated 8th May, 2007 and ROBERT FOULSER dated 24th January, 2007. The application was strongly contested.…

…The substantive application, was heard by Kasango, J who dismissed the application discharged the 1st Defendant and released the security which had been given.…

…The application is supported by affidavits sworn by ATUL SHAH dated 8th May, 2007 and ROBERT FOULSER dated 24th January, 2007. The application was strongly contested.…

…The substantive application, was heard by Kasango, J who dismissed the application discharged the 1st Defendant and released the security which had been given.…

…That this application be heard inter-partes on 29.8.95. 4. That the costs of this application do abide the outcome of the application.…

…The application is opposed by the defendants who have filed their own application to strike out the Applicant’s application. They gave notice of legal objections.…

…On the defendant’s application the court ordered the plaintiff on June 7, 1982 to supply the particulars asked for in the prescribed form No 15, Appendix B of the Civil Procedure Rules, within seventy days.…

…The court made the order asked for and the plaintiff’s suit was dismissed even though the particulars had been supplied before the hearing date of the defendant’s application, and notwithstanding also the plaintiff’s offer…

…Let it also be borne in mind, what the limits of the application were. Section 28(1) of the Act (cap 22) permits an ex parte application to be made.…

…Sec. 28(2) provides: “(2) Where such an application is made before the commencement of a relevant action, the court shall grant leave in respect of any cause of action to which the application relates; if, but only if, on…

…Accordingly they applied under the priviso to that section for the admission of their respective appeals out of time by applications dated July 19, 1984.…

…Their applications came before Bhandari, J, on the August 23, 1984, on which occasion it was stated that the appellants were absent and unrepresented, and that Mr Metho appeared for the Republic, as he did in this Court.…

…The Plaintiff’s Advocate opposed the application for adjournment and the Court agreed with her that because the Defendant’s Advocate had had ample opportunity to withdraw, he had not done so and was not entitled to an adjournment…

…But the question cannot be determined by the application of any rigid rules. Each case must be considered according to its facts.…

…That, unfortunately, is not an end of the matter because there remains the vexed question of the motor vehicle KWL 653, which was the subject of an application by the republic before the Chief Justice on February 17, 1986…

…AFC maintained that the plaintiff, that is, the appellant, was its “loanee”, that the appellant was in default and that the AFC was fully justified in seizing the pick-up, and (in the Notice of Objection to the injunction application…