Search court decisions

…The appellant at first filed a defence denying liability to the respondent but when the case came up for hearing before the High Court (Aganyanya, J) on the 20th February, 1989, a consent order was entered and the terms of…

…that order were that judgment on liability was entered for the respondent and four medical reports were put in evidence without calling the doctors who had made them.…

…particular instance, not only the particulars had already been supplied when the order dismissing the plaintiff’s suit was made, the defendant had also filed its defence about three months previously which was merely a denial of liability…

…In the circumstances of this appeal various transactions have occurred in relation to the stolen negotiable instrument and issues of liability for the complainant’s loss may require to be sorted out between various parties…

…in working order it should have been returned to the plaintiff immediately instead of keeping it for more than two years, and then returning it after having it repaired which was an acceptance of both the obligation and liability…

…in working order it should have been returned to the plaintiff immediately instead of keeping it for more than two years, and then returning it after having it repaired which was an acceptance of both the obligation and liability…

…The learned trial judge found that the accident was caused by the negligence of DW 1 and there is no appeal against liability.…

…Liability was admitted when the appellant’s claims against the respondent came to trial at the end of June 1982. The only issue was the quantum of damages, special and general, the respondent should pay the appellant.…

…Liability was admitted when the appellant’s claims against the respondent came to trial at the end of June 1982. The only issue was the quantum of damages, special and general, the respondent should pay the appellant.…