Case Search

pillars

Case Action: Ruling


ANDREW KABAILA V CAROL BAHATI KAHINDI [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 19 of 2009 Date Delivered: 03 Apr 2013

Judge: Christine Wanjiku Meoli

Court: High Court at Malindi

Parties: ANDREW KABAILA V CAROL BAHATI KAHINDI

Citation: ANDREW KABAILA V CAROL BAHATI KAHINDI [2013] eKLR

Read More

J.G.M V Z.M.M [2013]eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous 126 of 2012 Date Delivered: 03 Apr 2013

Judge: William Musya Musyoka

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: J.G.M V Z.M.G

Citation: J.G.M V Z.M.M [2013] eKLR

Reported by Teddy Musiga

Issues

I. Whether Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to matrimonial causes.

II. Whether section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act could be invoked to transfer suits from one High Court station to another.

Family Law - marriagedissolution of marriage – transfer of a divorce cause from one High Court station to another – whether section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to matrimonial causes.

Civil Practice and Procedure – suits – filing of suits – transfer of suits from one High Court to another – whether Section 17 of the civil Procedure Act could be invoked to transfer suits from one High Court station to another.

Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that

“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits whose jurisdiction –

a) The defendant or each of the defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or works for gain or

b) Any of the defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, provided either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants do not reside or carry on business, or personally work for gain as aforesaid acquiesce in such institution: or

c) The cause of action wholly or in part arises.”

Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act states that

“Where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more subordinate courts, and is instituted in one of those courts, any defendant after notice to the other parties or the court of its own motion, may at the earliest opportunity, apply to the High Court to have the suit transferred to another court; and the High court after considering the objections if any at all shall determine in which of the several courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.”

Held:

1. Proceedings in matrimonial causes are regulated by the Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap 152 of the Laws of Kenya and the Matrimonial Causes Rules, which is a subsidiary legislation made under Section 39 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. Therefore matrimonial causes are regulated by the legislation which is separate and distinct from the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Matrimonial causes are subject to a special jurisdiction by divorce courts which exercises special powers and follow a special procedure. The said special jurisdiction, powers and procedures are recognized in section 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, which saves the special jurisdiction and powers, including those set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act and Matrimonial Causes Rules.

3. It is the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Matrimonial Causes Rules which determine how a matrimonial suit is to be instituted and when and how a party is to be sued in those proceedings. Consequently, Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act is of no application to a divorce cause as a divorce cause being a matrimonial cause, can only be instituted in the manner provided for in the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Matrimonial Causes Rules. Accordingly, Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply at all to a matrimonial cause properly instituted under the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Matrimonial Causes Rules.

4. Per Shah v Shah (2002) KLR 607 Onyancha, J held that where any proceedings are governed by a special Act of Parliament, the provisions of such an Act must be construed strictly and applied and that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply unless expressly provided for in such an Act and such an approach remains the same even if the special Act is silent about and does not include the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. Therefore, Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to matters which are matrimonial except where the Matrimonial Causes Act itself so directs.

5. Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act only applies to suits pending at a subordinate court. In respect to such suits, the High court has jurisdiction to determine which of the two or more subordinate courts may try the case. The High court upon making such determination may then transfer the case or suit from the subordinate court where it was filed to another.

6. Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to the High court. There is no power granted by section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act to withdraw a suit from one High Court to another. Indeed, there is not a single provision in the Civil Procedure Act and its rules which specifically empowers the High Court to order the transfer of cases from one High Court station to another.

7. Transfer of suits from one High court to another can only be ordered by the High court in exercise of inherent powers. However, such power should be exercised by the High court judge sitting at the station where the matter is pending. It is that court that should order that the matter be transferred from itself to another High court station and not vice versa.

Application dismissed.

Read More

JGM V ZMM [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous 126 of 2012 Date Delivered: 03 Apr 2013

Judge: William Musya Musyoka

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: JGM v ZMM

Citation: JGM V ZMM [2013] eKLR

Reported by Teddy Musiga

Issues

I. Whether Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to matrimonial causes.

II. Whether section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act could be invoked to transfer suits from one High Court station to another.

Family Law - marriagedissolution of marriage – transfer of a divorce cause from one High Court station to another – whether section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to matrimonial causes.

Civil Practice and Procedure – suits – filing of suits – transfer of suits from one High Court to another – whether Section 17 of the civil Procedure Act could be invoked to transfer suits from one High Court station to another.

Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that

 “Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits whose jurisdiction –

(a) The defendant or each of the defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or works for gain or

(b) Any of the defendants (where there are more than one) at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain, provided either the leave of the court is given, or the defendants do not reside or carry on business, or personally work for gain as aforesaid acquiesce in such institution: or

(c) The cause of action wholly or in part arises.”

Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act states that

“Where a suit may be instituted in any one of two or more subordinate courts, and is instituted in one of those courts, any defendant after notice to the other parties or the court of its own motion, may at the earliest opportunity, apply to the High Court to have the suit transferred to another court; and the High court after considering the objections if any at all shall determine in which of the several courts having jurisdiction the suit shall proceed.”

Held:

1. Proceedings in matrimonial causes are regulated by the Matrimonial Causes Act, Cap 152 of the Laws of Kenya and the Matrimonial Causes Rules, which is a subsidiary legislation made under Section 39 of the Matrimonial Causes Act. Therefore matrimonial causes are regulated by the legislation which is separate and distinct from the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Matrimonial causes are subject to a special jurisdiction by divorce courts which exercises special powers and follow a special procedure. The said special jurisdiction, powers and procedures are recognized in section 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, which saves the special jurisdiction and powers, including those set out in the Matrimonial Causes Act and Matrimonial Causes Rules.

3. It is the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Matrimonial Causes Rules which determine how a matrimonial suit is to be instituted and when and how a party is to be sued in those proceedings. Consequently, Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act is of no application to a divorce cause as a divorce cause being a matrimonial cause, can only be instituted in the manner provided for in the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Matrimonial Causes Rules. Accordingly, Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply at all to a matrimonial cause properly instituted under the Matrimonial Causes Act and the Matrimonial Causes Rules.

4. Per Shah v Shah (2002) KLR 607 Onyancha, J held that where any proceedings are governed by a special Act of Parliament, the provisions of such an Act must be construed strictly and applied and that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply unless expressly provided for in such an Act and such an approach remains the same even if the special Act is silent about and does not include the Civil Procedure Act and Rules. Therefore, Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply to matters which are matrimonial except where the Matrimonial Causes Act itself so directs.

5. Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act only applies to suits pending at a subordinate court. In respect to such suits, the High court has jurisdiction to determine which of the two or more subordinate courts may try the case. The High court upon making such determination may then transfer the case or suit from the subordinate court where it was filed to another.

6. Section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act does not apply to the High court. There is no power granted by section 17 of the Civil Procedure Act to withdraw a suit from one High Court to another. Indeed, there is not a single provision in the Civil Procedure Act and its rules which specifically empowers the High Court to order the transfer of cases from one High Court station to another.

7. Transfer of suits from one High court to another can only be ordered by the High court in exercise of inherent powers. However, such power should be exercised by the High court judge sitting at the station where the matter is pending. It is that court that should order that the matter be transferred from itself to another High court station and not vice versa.

Application dismissed.

Read More

Republic V City Council Of Nairobi Town Clerk & 3 Others Ex-parte Metrotrans Limited [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous Civil Case 13 of 2013 Date Delivered: 28 Mar 2013

Judge: George Vincent Odunga

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Republic v City Council of Nairobi Town Clerk, Director of City Inspectorate (Nairobi), Nairobi Area Traffic Commandant & Attorney General Ex-parte Metrotrans Limited

Citation: Republic V City Council Of Nairobi Town Clerk & 3 Others Ex-parte Metrotrans Limited [2013] eKLR

Read More

Julius Kipkeny Kolil & Another V Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 407 of 2012 Date Delivered: 28 Mar 2013

Judge: Jonathan Bowen Havelock

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Julius Kipkeny Kolil & Ruth Jemutai Kamar v Kenya Commercial Bank, Nancy Waithera Kiruri & Muganda Wasulwa T/A Keysian Auctioneers

Citation: Julius Kipkeny Kolil & Another V Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

R.M.M V J.R.K [2013]eKLR

Case Number: Civil Miscellaneous Application 7 of 2012 Date Delivered: 28 Mar 2013

Judge: Maureen Akinyi Odero

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: R.M.M v J.R.K

Citation: R.M.M V J.R.K [2013] eKLR

Read More

Suleiman Said Shahbal V Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission Of Kenya & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Constitutional Petition 162 of 2013 Date Delivered: 27 Mar 2013

Judge: Mumbi Ngugi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Suleiman Said Shahbal v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission of Kenya, Secretary, Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission, Mwashigadi Mwadime (sued in capacity as a returning officer IEBC, Mombasa County) &Hon;. Hassan Ali Joho

Citation: Suleiman Said Shahbal V Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission Of Kenya & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Election law – election petition - petition seeking to stop swearing in of respondent as duly elected governor - where petition challenging the result was brought as a constitutional petition alleging violation of petitioners rights other than an election petition  – duty of a party seeking to file an election petition to comply with the rules and procedures set out in the Elections Act and the Elections Rules - whether the Constitutionally mandated procedure for resolution of election petitions can be circumvented by way of a petition alleging violation of constitutional rights – whether the petition had merit.

Civil practice and procedure – jurisdiction - geographical jurisdiction – where the petition was filed in Nairobi instead of Mombasa where the elections was conducted – whether such omission was fatal to the petition - Constitution of Kenya 2010 articles -  22, 23, 27, 38, 50, 73, 75, 81, 82(d), 83, 84, 86, 87, 180 (4) – Elections Act No 24 of 2010

Read More

Joseph Tiampati Ole Musuni & 2 Others V Samuel Kuntai Tunai& 10 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Election Petition 3 of 2013 Date Delivered: 26 Mar 2013

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Joseph Tiampati Ole Musuni & 2 others V Samuel Kuntai Tunai& 10 others

Citation: Joseph Tiampati Ole Musuni & 2 Others V Samuel Kuntai Tunai& 10 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Fahim Yasin Twaha V Silvano Buko Bonaya & 2 Others[2013]eKLR

Case Number: Election Petition 5 of 2013 Date Delivered: 26 Mar 2013

Judge: Christine Wanjiku Meoli

Court: High Court at Malindi

Parties: Fahim Yasin Twaha v Silvano Buko Bonaya & 2 others

Citation: Fahim Yasin Twaha V Silvano Buko Bonaya & 2 Others[2013] eKLR

Read More

JOSEPH KABERIA V REPUBLIC[2013]eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 104 of 1998 Date Delivered: 26 Mar 2013

Judge: Jessie Wanjiku Lessit

Court: High Court at Meru

Parties: JOSEPH KABERIA V REPUBLIC

Citation: JOSEPH KABERIA V REPUBLIC[2013] eKLR

Read More

Abdinoor Adan Abdikarim V Independent Electrol And Boundaries Commission & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 3 of 2013 Date Delivered: 25 Mar 2013

Judge: B J Ndeda

Court: Election Petition in Magistrate Courts

Parties: Abdinoor Adan Abdikarim v Independent Electrol and Boundaries Commission & Mohamed Mohamud Osman

Citation: Abdinoor Adan Abdikarim V Independent Electrol And Boundaries Commission & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Bonventure Odeyo Obuyu V Bernard Mulembo Namwamba [2013]eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 20 of 2012 Date Delivered: 24 Mar 2013

Judge: Luka Kiprotich Kimaru, Francis Tuiyott

Court: High Court at Busia

Parties: Bonventure Odeyo Obuyu(Suing As The Administrator Of The Estate Of Elias Malomba Obuyu Alias Malomba Otiero –Deceased) v Bernard Mulembo Namwamba

Citation: Bonventure Odeyo Obuyu V Bernard Mulembo Namwamba [2013] eKLR

Read More

J P S V Aga Khan Health Service Kenya T/a The Aga Khan Hospital & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal (Application) 28 of 2012 Date Delivered: 22 Mar 2013

Judge: David Kenani Maraga, Erastus Mwaniki Githinji, Martha Karambu Koome

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: J P S v Aga Khan Health Service Kenya t/a the Aga Khan Hospital, Osur Oduor & J W S

Citation: J P S V Aga Khan Health Service Kenya T/a The Aga Khan Hospital & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Mungai Njoroge V Maina Munene & 4 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 3016 of 1978 Date Delivered: 21 Mar 2013

Judge: Pauline Nyamweya

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Mungai Njoroge v Maina Munene, Bernard Chiori Murage, Land Registrar Kirinyaga & Attorney General Interested Party Joseph Nicholas Murage

Citation: Mungai Njoroge V Maina Munene & 4 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Ferdinard Ndung’u Waititu V Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commsison (IEBC) & 8 Others[2013] eKLR

Case Number: Election Petition 1 of 2013 Date Delivered: 21 Mar 2013

Judge: Mumbi Ngugi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Ferdinard Ndung’u Waititu v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commsison (IEBC), Isaac Hassan (Returning Officer of the National Tallying Centre),Nairobi County Returning Officer ,Evans Odhiambo Kidero , Jonathan Mweke ,Honourable Attorney Genaral , Divisional Commanding Officer (DCIO) Gigiri Police Division, Nairobi, Divisional Commanding Officer (DCIO) Kayole Police Division, Nairobi & Inspector General of the National Police Service

Citation: Ferdinard Ndung’u Waititu V Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commsison (IEBC) & 8 Others[2013] eKLR

Reported by Emma Kinya Mwobobia

Constitutional Law – election petition – jurisdiction – jurisdiction of the High Court – jurisdiction to hear and determine election petitions - special jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution to hear and determine election petitions – contention by the respondent that the High Court did not have jurisdiction in the matter since it had not been gazetted as an Elections Court as required by the law - whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter – Elections (Parliamentary and County Elections) Rules 2013

Election Law – election petition – procedure of filing an election petition – need for the election results to be officially declared through gazettement - requirement to file the petition within twenty eight days from the date of publication of the election results in the Kenya Gazette – where the petitioner had filed the petition on the same day it was gazette – whether the petition had been filed in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the electoral laws – Constitution of Kenya, 2010 Article 87(2), Election Act section 76 (1)

Words and Phrases – definition – definition of declaration – definition according to the Black’s Law Dictionary – inference from the electoral laws - what amounted to declaration of election results – whether declaration required publication of the election results in the Kenya Gazette

Read More

Mbaraka Kipkoech Salah V Abdul Kibet Rotich [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 74 of 2012 Date Delivered: 21 Mar 2013

Judge: Abigail Mshila

Court: High Court at Eldoret

Parties: Mbaraka Kipkoech Salah v Abdul Kibet Rotich

Citation: Mbaraka Kipkoech Salah V Abdul Kibet Rotich [2013] eKLR

Read More

Delight Security Services Limited V Charles Ouma Oyugi [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 232 of 2012 Date Delivered: 20 Mar 2013

Judge: Alnashir Ramazanali Magan Visram

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Delight Security Services Limited v Charles Ouma Oyugi

Citation: Delight Security Services Limited V Charles Ouma Oyugi [2013] eKLR

Read More

Joseph Mburu Gitau & Another V Principle Magistrate's Court At Nairobi & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 142 of 2012 Date Delivered: 20 Mar 2013

Judge: Erastus Mwaniki Githinji, Fatuma sichale, Patrick Omwenga Kiage

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Joseph Mburu Gitau & another v Principle Magistrate's Court at Nairobi & another

Citation: Joseph Mburu Gitau & Another V Principle Magistrate's Court At Nairobi & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

EDWARD WAFULA YANDA V BOAZ MUSUKHA WAKHWAKU & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 72 of 2008 Date Delivered: 19 Mar 2013

Judge: Anne Omollo

Court: High Court at Bungoma

Parties: EDWARD WAFULA YANDA v BOAZ MUSUKHA WAKHWAKU & 2 others

Citation: EDWARD WAFULA YANDA V BOAZ MUSUKHA WAKHWAKU & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Robert Chesang & 2 Others V Gaetano Ruffo & 8 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 272 of 2012 Date Delivered: 18 Mar 2013

Judge: Isaac Lenaola

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Robert Chesang, Maxwell Otieno Odongo & Zephania Juma Ajowi v Gaetano Ruffo, Kenya Shell Limited, Kangeri Wanjohi T/A Kindest Auctioneer,Edward Muriu Kamau t/a Muriu, Mungai & Co. Advocates, Standard Chartered Bank, Attorney General, Commissioner of Lands,Registrar of Titles & Director of Public Prosecutions

Citation: Robert Chesang & 2 Others V Gaetano Ruffo & 8 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Jamii Bora Scandinavia AB V Richard G. Njoba & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 731 of 2012 Date Delivered: 18 Mar 2013

Judge: Eric Kennedy Okumu Ogola

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Jamii Bora Scandinavia AB v Richard G. Njoba & Themis Investmetns Ltd

Citation: Jamii Bora Scandinavia AB V Richard G. Njoba & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Jared Wakhule Tubei & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Revision Case 26 of 2012 Date Delivered: 18 Mar 2013

Judge: Francis Gikonyo

Court: High Court at Bungoma

Parties: Republic v Jared Wakhule Tubei & Maryflorence Wander

Citation: Republic V Jared Wakhule Tubei & Another [2013] eKLR

Issues:
i. Whether High Court had supervisory jurisdiction to review the correctness, legality, impropriety and irregularity of a decision of the High Court
ii. Whether discontinuance could have been granted where the prosecution had filed charges contrary to the procedure under the Anti – Corruption and Economic Crimes Act in prosecution of corruption offences.
iii. Whether a discontinuance granted by the Court amounted to an acquittal or conditional discharge of the case in the circumstances
iv. What factors should the trial court have considered in the termination of criminal proceedings as underpinned under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010?
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 article 157(11) provided;
In exercising the powers conferred by this article, the Director of Public Prosecution shall have regard to the public interest, the interest lf the administration of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process
Jurisdiction – jurisdiction of the High Court - scope of supervisory powers of the High Court
– application for the revision of the trial court orders in an application for termination of criminal proceedings – circumstances where the revisionary powers of the High Court can be invoked - Whether the High Court had supervisory jurisdiction to grant the revision orders in the circumstances – Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75) sections 362-364
Criminal Practice and Procedure -termination of a criminal proceeding - provision under the
Criminal Practice and Procedure Code - principles that guide a trial court in an application for discontinuance of criminal proceedings - factors that determine when a termination of a criminal proceeding results in an acquittal or conditional discharge – whether the termination of the criminal proceedings would have availed in the circumstances – whether the termination would have resulted in an acquittal or a conditional discharge - Constitution of Kenya, 2010 article 165(6) & (7), 50, 157(6)(c), (7), (8) and (11), 80, and 79 of the Constitution
Corruption and Economic Crimes - procedure – procedure prescribed in prosecuting criminal proceedings on corruption and economic crimes- where the prosecution had filed criminal proceedings contrary to the provisions of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act - requirement for a report to be availed by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to the Director of Public Prosecution and a recommendation to prosecute - fight against corruption
as a public interest issue – whether the procedure adopted by the prosecution was a bar to the criminal proceedings in the circumstances - section 35 & 23 of Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) Act No 3 of 2003.
Held:
1. The High Court inherently exercised its supervisory powers under article 165(6) and (7) of the
Constitution of Kenya, 2010 where a decision of a trial court had been questioned and could call for, and examine the record, finding or order of a proceeding in a subordinate court in order to be satisfied of its correctness, legality, propriety or regularity.
2. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court by its nature was aimed at ensuring that the subordinate courts operated within the law when discharging their judicial functions. There was therefore no constitutional or legal necessity that an appeal should have been filed on such matters, or before the Court could exercise its supervisory authority. The review application before the Court was therefore competent.
3. The exercise of supervisory power of the High Court, under article 165(6) & (7) of the Constitution and sections 362-364 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) was not limited to situations where there was an error on the face of the record or new issues had emerged. It covered incorrect, illegal, improper or irregular proceedings, order or finding of the trial court.
4. Under article 157(6) of the Constitution, the prosecution could have discontinued criminal proceedings at any stage before judgment was delivered. The discontinuance however had to be with the permission of the Court, which was quite a departure from the notorious arbitrary practice of nolle proseque.
5. The constitutional requirement was that in making the application for discontinuance, the prosecution had to be guided by article 157(11) of the Constitution, the accused must have participated and the Court could grant or not grant its permission for discontinuance of a proceeding depending on the circumstances of the case and the reasons given for the discontinuance.
6. Section 35 of the Anti-corruption and Economic Crimes Act (ACECA) required the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission to make a report to the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) of the results of the investigation with recommendations to prosecute the suspects or otherwise and the DPP should have accepted the recommendations before proceedings were commenced in court.
7. The order of the trial court that the prosecution should have proceeded with the hearing of the criminal trial was erroneous and was not supported by law. The trial court should therefore have given its permission for discontinuance and ordered the termination of the proceedings.
8. Charges mounted contrary to the provisions of the ACECA, were a nullity and such charges should have been terminated except, subject to the Constitution, the termination should not have abated the prospects of re-instituting similar charges as long as the necessary procedures set out in the law had been followed.
9. A consideration of sound constitutional principles would have guided the judicious exercise of discretion of the trial court in the matter to wit;
a) the principle of nullity
b) balancing of the rights of the accused, the public interest, the interest of the administration
of justice and the need to prevent and avoid abuse of the legal process.
10. Constitutionally, in deciding whether the discontinuance will be an acquittal or not, the trial court should have considered the stage at which the proceedings had been discontinued. If discontinuance was sought after the prosecution had closed its case, the accused should have been acquitted under article 157(7) and article 50(o) of the Constitution would have applied to shield the accused on the principle of double jeopardy from being charged again on similar charges.
11. In other situations which did not fall under article 157(7) of the Constitution, there was a rebuttable presumption that the discontinuance was not a bar from future prosecution. It was recognition of the role of the Court to determine whether in the circumstances of each case, an acquittal should or should not be ordered. According to the Constitution in an application for discontinuance, the trial court should have regard to the public interest involved, the interest of the administration of justice and the need to present and avoid abuse of the legal process.
12. The fight against corruption was a public interest issue, and prosecution of those investigated for corruption and economic crimes was a matter of the administration of justice. In this case, there was no evidence of any abuse of, or intention on the prosecution to abuse the process of the Court.

Proceedings before the Magistrate’s Court terminated.
Cases:
East Africa;

1. Kangangi, Nicholas Muriuki v Attorney General Civil Appeal No 331 of 2010 – (Followed)
Statutes:
East Africa;

1. Anti-Corruption and economic crimes Act (cap 65) sections 23, 35, 36 - (Interpreted)
2. Constitution of Kenya, 2010 articles 50, 157(6)(c)(7)(8)(11); 165(6)(7) - (Interpreted)
3. Criminal Procedure Code (cap 75) sections 87(a); 362-364 - (Interpreted)
Advocates:
1. Mr Ombito for 1st Respondent
2. Mr Murunga for 2nd Defendant
3. Mr Kibelion for the State

Read More

Youth Agenda V Rita Kijala Shako [2014] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application Nai 107 of 2012 Date Delivered: 15 Mar 2013

Judge: Wanjiru Karanja, Milton Stephen Asike Makhandia, Kathurima M'inoti

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Youth Agenda v Rita Kijala Shako

Citation: Youth Agenda V Rita Kijala Shako [2014] eKLR

Read More

Attorney General V Law Society Of Kenya & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal (Application) 133 of 2011 Date Delivered: 15 Mar 2013

Judge: Daniel Kiio Musinga

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Attorney General v Law Society of Kenya & Central Organization of Trade Unions (K) [2013] eKLR

Citation: Attorney General V Law Society Of Kenya & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Erad Suppliers 7 General Contracts Limited V National Cereals 7 Produce Board & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Misc Case 639 of 2009 Date Delivered: 15 Mar 2013

Judge: Alfred Mabeya

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Erad Suppliers 7 General Contracts Limited v National Cereals 7 Produce Board & Kenya Commercial Bank

Citation: Erad Suppliers 7 General Contracts Limited V National Cereals 7 Produce Board & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Nairobi Club Registered Trustees V Industrial Court & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 287 of 2011 Date Delivered: 15 Mar 2013

Judge: Roselyn Naliaka Nambuye, George Benedict Maina Kariuki, James Otieno Odek

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Nairobi Club Registered Trustees v Industrial Court, Kenya Union of Domestic Hotels, Educational Institutions, Hospitals and Allied Workers (Kudheiha) & Servanthood & Light Development Foundation

Citation: Nairobi Club Registered Trustees V Industrial Court & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Kenya Revenue Authority Commissioner Of Custom Services Ex-parte Romageco Kenya Limited [2013] eKLR

Case Number: J r Misc Application 58 of 2013 Date Delivered: 15 Mar 2013

Judge: George Vincent Odunga

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Republic v Kenya Revenue Authority Commissioner of Custom Services Ex-parte Romageco Kenya Limited

Citation: Republic V Kenya Revenue Authority Commissioner Of Custom Services Ex-parte Romageco Kenya Limited [2013] eKLR

Read More

Shimmers Plaza Limited V National Bank Of Kenya Ltd [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 38 of 2012 Date Delivered: 15 Mar 2013

Judge: Martha Karambu Koome, James Otieno Odek, Stephen Gatembu Kairu

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Ltd

Citation: Shimmers Plaza Limited V National Bank Of Kenya Ltd [2013] eKLR

Read More

Anders Bruel T/A Queencrosss Aviation V Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 243 of 2012 Date Delivered: 14 Mar 2013

Judge: Mumbi Ngugi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Anders Bruel T/A Queencrosss Aviation v Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & Attorney General

Citation: Anders Bruel T/A Queencrosss Aviation V Kenya Civil Aviation Authority & Another [2013] eKLR

Reported by Teddy Musiga

Issues

1. Whether the filing of a notice of appeal can serve as a bar to espousing an application for review of the same decision.

Civil Practice & Procedure – review & appeal - notice of appeal – distinction between review and appeal - filing notice of appeal – review – whether the filing of a notice of appeal can serve as a bar to espousing an application for review of the same decision – Order 45 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules .

Held:

1.  The filing of a notice of appeal is simply an intention to appeal and is not the appeal itself.

2.  Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 allows  parties who consider themselves aggrieved by court orders or decrees from which appeals are allowed, ‘but from which no appeal has been preferred’ to file an application for review if there are new and important matters which have been discovered on the face of the record.

3.  To succeed in an application for review, a petitioner needs to show the discovery of new material or evidence that was not available, with the exercise of due diligence, at the time of hearing, and/ or demonstrate there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

4.  The real distinction between mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record is that; where an error on a substantial point of law stares one in the face, and there could be no two opinions, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. While an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or on points of where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. A mere error or view is certainly no ground for a review although it may be for an appeal.

Application dismissed.

Read More

Sankale Ole Kantai T/A Kantai & Co. Advocates V Housing Finance Company Of Kenya Limited [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 471 of 2012 Date Delivered: 14 Mar 2013

Judge: George Kanyi Kimondo

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Sankale Ole Kantai T/A Kantai & Co. Advocates v Housing Finance Company Of Kenya Limited

Citation: Sankale Ole Kantai T/A Kantai & Co. Advocates V Housing Finance Company Of Kenya Limited [2013] eKLR

Read More

John Kinyanjui Kanya & Another V Barclays Bank Of Kenya Limited & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 638 of 2012 Date Delivered: 14 Mar 2013

Judge: Jacqueline Kamau

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: John Kinyanjui Kanya & New Vybestar Limited v Barclays Bank Of Kenya Limited & Thika Inn Limited

Citation: John Kinyanjui Kanya & Another V Barclays Bank Of Kenya Limited & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Cfc Stanbic Bank Limited V Attorney General & Another[2013]eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 400 of 2011 Date Delivered: 14 Mar 2013

Judge: Mumbi Ngugi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Cfc Stanbic Bank Limited v Attorney General & another

Citation: Cfc Stanbic Bank Limited V Attorney General & Another[2013] eKLR

Read More

Kenya Guards And Allied Workers Union V Registrar Of Trade Unions & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Judicial Review 369 of 2010 Date Delivered: 13 Mar 2013

Judge: George Vincent Odunga

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Kenya Guards and Allied Workers Union v Registrar of Trade Unions, Kenya National Private Security Workers Union, Samson Wanjara Matete & Williat Isaac Machonjo

Citation: Kenya Guards And Allied Workers Union V Registrar Of Trade Unions & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Berkshire Foods Limited V Crescent Transportation Co. Limited [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 289 of 2003 Date Delivered: 12 Mar 2013

Judge: George Kanyi Kimondo

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Berkshire Foods Limited v Crescent Transportation Co. Limited

Citation: Berkshire Foods Limited V Crescent Transportation Co. Limited [2013] eKLR

Read More

Jeremiah Gitau Kiereini V Capital Markets Authority & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 371 of 2012 Date Delivered: 12 Mar 2013

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Jeremiah Gitau Kiereini v Capital Markets Authority & Attorney General

Citation: Jeremiah Gitau Kiereini V Capital Markets Authority & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Director General Of The Public Procurement Oversight Authority & 3 Others Ex-parte Africa Infrastructure Development Company [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous Civil Application 24 of 2013 Date Delivered: 11 Mar 2013

Judge: George Vincent Odunga

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Republic v Director General of the Public Procurement Oversight Authority & 3 others Ex-parte Africa Infrastructure Development Company

Citation: Republic V Director General Of The Public Procurement Oversight Authority & 3 Others Ex-parte Africa Infrastructure Development Company [2013] eKLR

Read More

Titus Musyoki Nzioka V John Kimathi Maingi & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application Nai. 8 of 2012 (UR 6/2012) Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Wanjiru Karanja, Patrick Omwenga Kiage, Kathurima M'inoti

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Titus Musyoki Nzioka v John Kimathi Maingi & Kings Cargo Agencies Limited

Citation: Titus Musyoki Nzioka V John Kimathi Maingi & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Engineers Registration Board V Jessee Waweru Wahome & Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 263 of 2012 Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Wanjiru Karanja, William Ouko, Stephen Gatembu Kairu

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Engineers Registration Board v Jessee Waweru Wahome & others

Citation: Engineers Registration Board V Jessee Waweru Wahome & Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

THE AFRICA CENTRE FOR OPEN GOVERNANCE(AFRICOG) V AHMED ISSACK HASSAN & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 152 of 2013 Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Isaac Lenaola, David Shikomera Majanja, Weldon Kipyegon Korir

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: THE AFRICA CENTRE FOR OPEN GOVERNANCE(AFRICOG) v AHMED ISSACK HASSAN &another;

Citation: THE AFRICA CENTRE FOR OPEN GOVERNANCE(AFRICOG) V AHMED ISSACK HASSAN & Another [2013] eKLR

Reported by Emma Kinya Mwobobia

The petitioner, a non-governmental organization working in the area of Democracy, transparency, and open governance in Kenya filed a petition challenging the manual tallying of the presidential ballots without verification with the actual Constituency based results in the relevant submitted forms. The petitioner inter-alia sought orders for the High Court to stop the manual tallying of the presidential ballots and in the event that the respondents will have announced the presidential results by the hearing of the application, an order restraining the respondents from gazetting the results until hearing and determination of the petition herein.

The jurisdiction of the High Court is provided for under Article 165(3),(5) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and further limited to various instances including matters reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Constitution. The Constitution had also vested exclusive original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court  to hear and determine disputes relating to elections to the office of the President arising under Article 140 which provided for the manner in which questions as to the validity of presidential elections shall be handled.

Issue:

Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to stop the manual tallying of the presidential ballots.

Jurisdiction – High Court jurisdiction –  jurisdiction of the High Court in determining matters on presidential elections – limitation of High Court jurisdiction - constitutional provision  of Supreme Court having original jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to elections to the office of the president – petitioner seeking orders to stop the manual tallying of the presidential ballots  - where the matter involved the process leading to the declaration of a successful presidential candidate – whether the High Court had jurisdiction to stop the manual vote tallying of presidential elections - validity of the petition – Constitution of Kenya, 2010 Articles 165, 163 and 140

Held:

1. Jurisdiction was everything and without it, the court had no power to make one step. Where a court had no jurisdiction there would have been no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence and a court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it, the moment it holds the opinion that it was without jurisdiction.

2. The import of Article 165(3) and Article 140 of the Constitution was that where jurisdiction was exclusively donated by the Constitution to the Supreme Court, the High Court could not have invoked its jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(d)(ii) to enquire whether anything done under the authority of the Constitution was inconsistent with or in contravention of the Constitution.

3. According to the case in the Principle of Gender Representation in the National Assembly and the Senate, Advisory Opinion Application No. 2 of 2012 (2012) eKLR, there was no reason for the court to have presumed that the framers of the Constitution had intended that the Supreme Court should have exercised original jurisdiction only in respect of a specific element, namely, disputes arising after the election while excluding those disputes which might have arisen during the conduct of the election. The High Court has therefore no jurisdiction over any matter in which the Constitution had reserved for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

4. The petition contained matters that involved the process leading to the declaration of a successful presidential candidate. The presidential election was not a single event but a process that flowed from nominations to election petitions subsequent to the declaration of presidential election results. The High Court could therefore not have appropriated jurisdiction to entertain the petition however urgent or important it may have been to the parties or the public.

5. The issues raised in the petition however, were not idle and should therefore  be pursued in the right forum.

Petition dismissed.

Read More

Fina Bank Ltd V Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 643 of 2005 Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Jonathan Bowen Havelock

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Fina Bank Ltd v Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha

Citation: Fina Bank Ltd V Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha [2013] eKLR

Read More

Ngara Mucokaniriria Company Limited & 11 Others V Francis Kinyanjui Mwangi & 7 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 170 of 2012 Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Alfred Mabeya

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Ngara Mucokaniriria Company Limited,Agnes Njeri Jacob,Peter Wambugu Macharia, James C.N Njoroge, Rebecca Wanjiru Ndungu, Lucy Wangui Ngura, Cyrus N. K. Mwaniki,Charles John Muraguri, Sarafina Wanjiru Ikahu,Smauel Njoroge Ndungu & Francis Gachigua Mbugua v Francis Kinyanjui Mwangi, Francis Muriu Njoroge, James Nderitu Njoroge , James Nderitu Njuguna,Lucy Njeri Nganga,Alexander Meeme Kajoi ,Perpetual Muthoni Kariuki & Registrar Of Companies

Citation: Ngara Mucokaniriria Company Limited & 11 Others V Francis Kinyanjui Mwangi & 7 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

F & S Scientific Limited V Kenya Revenue Authority & Another [2013]eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 260 of 2012 Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Wanjiru Karanja, William Ouko, Stephen Gatembu Kairu

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: F & S Scientific Limited v Kenya Revenue Authority & another

Citation: F & S Scientific Limited V Kenya Revenue Authority & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Koinange Investment & Development Ltd V Robert Nelson Ngethe [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 15 of 2012 Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Roselyn Naliaka Nambuye, William Ouko, Jamila Mohammed

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Koinange Investment & Development Ltd v Robert Nelson Ngethe

Citation: Koinange Investment & Development Ltd V Robert Nelson Ngethe [2013] eKLR

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AN INTENDED APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT WOULD BE CERTIFIED AS A MATTER OF GENERAL PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Reported by Beryl A. Ikamari

 

Issue

  1. Whether an alleged breach of the right to be heard and the risk of loss of property valued at Kshs. 1 billion, amount to a matter of general public importance, allowing for an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 163(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.

Constitutional Law-the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Kenya-the lodging of appeals from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court-the Court of Appeal’s certification that a matter of general public importance is involved, in an intended appeal to the Supreme Court-whether an alleged breach of the right to be heard and the risk of loss of property valued at Kshs. 1 billion is a matter of general public importance, concerning which the Court of Appeal should grant certification-the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 163(4).

Held:

  1. For purposes of Article 163(4) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, the words “leave of the court” and “certification by the court” bear the same legal meaning; the certification by the court which constitutes leave. In the circumstances, the certification would constitute leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Kenya.

 

  1. The requirement for certification under Article 163(4)(b) is a genuine filtering process to ensure that only appeals with elements of general public importance reach the Supreme Court. It is cardinal issues of law or of jurisprudential moment, whose importance transcends the circumstances of a particular case that have been certified to be of general public importance.

 

  1. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court must not be invoked in a routine fashion. It was never intended to be a regular court of appeal against all and sundry orders passed by the Court of Appeal.

 

  1. The party alleging that an intended appeal raises a matter of general public importance must demonstrate the existence of that importance by identifying and formulating, in the application, the matter of public importance relied upon.

 

  1. The nature of the applicant's claim (a sale contract), and the manner in which the ex parte judgment was obtained, indicate that the intended appeal to the Supreme Court does not raise a matter of public importance.

Application dismissed.

Read More

Greenfield Investments Limited V Baber Alibhai Mawji [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 5 of 2012 Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Wanjiru Karanja, Patrick Omwenga Kiage, Kathurima M'inoti

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Greenfield Investments Limited v Baber Alibhai Mawji

Citation: Greenfield Investments Limited V Baber Alibhai Mawji [2013] eKLR

WHETHER THE SUPREME COURT HAS RETROSPECTIVE JURISDICTION OVER COURT OF APPEAL MATTERS PRIOR TO THE PROMULGATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010

Reported by Andrew Halonyere & Cynthia Liavule

 

Issue

  1. Whether Article 163 (4) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 conferred appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court before the commencement of the Constitution.

Constitutional Law-Jurisdiction - appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court - leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court – whether the Constitution conferred appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court before its formation – Constitution of Kenya, 2010 ,Article 163 (4) (b)

Constitution of Kenya, 2010 Article 163(4) (b) provides,

(4)Appeals shall lie from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court

(b) In any other case in which the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, certifies that a matter of general public importance is involved subject to clause (5) Read More...

Held:

  1. The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163 (4) (b) of the Constitution of Kenya,2010 must necessarily and by definition be exercised more as an exception rather than as a matter of course, it could not have been the intention of the framers of the Constitution that appeal to the apex court be one to be lightly and generally invoked. The historical finality of the Court of Appeal in matters of law is retained and maintained save for a limited number of cases and subject to certification.

 

  1. Article 163 (4) (b) was forward looking and did not confer appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court before the commencement of the Constitution.

 

  1. It was unthinkable that the birth of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 order with new expanded rights should be treated as an opportunity to go back into the mist of time and revive old legal disputes no matter how unsatisfactorily in the eyes of the aggrieved they might have been concluded.

 

  1. The Supreme Court was bereft of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal for which the Court of Appeal certificate was sought. The Court of Appeal could not grant the said certificate for to do so would be tantamount to attempting to grant the Supreme Court a jurisdiction it does not possess and that would be an act of signal judicial futility.

Application dismissed.

 

Read More

Samson Owimba Ojiayo V Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & Another [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Petition 104 of 2013 Date Delivered: 08 Mar 2013

Judge: Isaac Lenaola

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Samson Owimba Ojiayo v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & Attorney General

Citation: Samson Owimba Ojiayo V Independent Electoral And Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & Another [2013] eKLR

Read More

Caltex Oil Kenya Limited V Crescent Construction Company Limited [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 437 of 2003 Date Delivered: 07 Mar 2013

Judge: George Kanyi Kimondo

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Caltex Oil Kenya Limited v Crescent Construction Company Limited

Citation: Caltex Oil Kenya Limited V Crescent Construction Company Limited [2013] eKLR

Read More

Shah Hirji Manek Limited V Ramesh Premchand Shah & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 312 of 2001 Date Delivered: 07 Mar 2013

Judge: Jacqueline Kamau

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Shah Hirji Manek Limited v Ramesh Premchand Shah, Sunny Style Manufacturers Limited, Ukay Estate Limited, Nakumatt Holdings Limited

Citation: Shah Hirji Manek Limited V Ramesh Premchand Shah & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Elisheba Muthoni Mbae V Nicholas Karani Gichohi & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 436 of 2010 Date Delivered: 01 Mar 2013

Judge: Jonathan Bowen Havelock

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts Commercial and Tax Division)

Parties: Elisheba Muthoni Mbae v Nicholas Karani Gichohi, Christine Wanjiru Karani & Robert Njiru Mbogo T/A Njiru Mbogo & Co. Advocates

Citation: Elisheba Muthoni Mbae V Nicholas Karani Gichohi & 2 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More

Twiga Chemicals Industries V Allan Stephen Reynolds [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal (Application) 300 of 2006 Date Delivered: 01 Mar 2013

Judge: Martha Karambu Koome, Roselyn Naliaka Nambuye, James Otieno Odek

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Twiga Chemicals Industries v Allan Stephen Reynolds

Citation: Twiga Chemicals Industries V Allan Stephen Reynolds [2013] eKLR

Read More

Dream Camp Kenya Limited V Mohammed Eltaff & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 170 of 2012 Date Delivered: 01 Mar 2013

Judge: John walter Onyango Otieno, William Ouko, Fatuma sichale

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Dream Camp Kenya Limited v Mohammed Eltaff, Saga Safaris Limited, Saga Travel and Safaris A. B. & Tour Africa Safaris Limited

Citation: Dream Camp Kenya Limited V Mohammed Eltaff & 3 Others [2013] eKLR

Read More