Case Search

pillars

Case Action: Ruling


Mary Wangui Oiyie V Physlis Wangui Oiyie [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Succession Cause 281 of 2006 Date Delivered: 06 Mar 2015

Judge: Rose Edwina Atieno Ougo

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Mary Wangui Oiyie v Physlis Wangui Oiyie

Citation: Mary Wangui Oiyie V Physlis Wangui Oiyie [2015] eKLR

Read More

Jane Nyambura Mwangi V Beatrice Majyambere [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 170 of 2014 Date Delivered: 06 Mar 2015

Judge: Mutungi Charles Kariuki

Court: High Court at Machakos

Parties: Jane Nyambura Mwangi v Beatrice Majyambere

Citation: Jane Nyambura Mwangi V Beatrice Majyambere [2015] eKLR

Read More

Nyutu Agrovet Limited V Airtel Networks Limited [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal (Application) 61 of 2012 Date Delivered: 06 Mar 2015

Judge: Wanjiru Karanja, John Wycliffe Mwera, Daniel Kiio Musinga, Jamila Mohammed, Kathurima M'inoti

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Nyutu Agrovet Limited v Airtel Networks Limited

Citation: Nyutu Agrovet Limited V Airtel Networks Limited [2015] eKLR

There is no Right of Appeal from a decision of the High Court on an arbitral award under section 35 of the Arbitration Act

 

Nyutu Agrovet Limited v Airtel Networks Limited

Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Civil Appeal (Application) No 61of 2012

Karanja, Mwera, Musinga, M’inoti&Mohammed, JJA

March 6, 2015

Reported by Andrew Halonyere

Brief Facts

A dispute arose between the applicant and the respondent relating to distribution of telephone products. The dispute was referred to a sole arbitrator in accordance with the terms of a contract between the parties. The arbitrator made an arbitral award in favor of the respondent. The arbitration agreement expressly provided that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties. Aggrieved by the award, the applicant applied, under section 35 of the Act, to set aside the award. The High Court in setting aside the arbitral award held that the arbitrator had gone beyond the dispute referred to him by the parties.

 Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the respondent brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal. In response, the applicant filed an application seeking to strike out the appeal on the basis that no appeal lay to the Court of Appeal.

In the instant case a five judge bench was constituted because there had been no judicial concurrence as to whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the High Court given under section 35 of the Act. There had been divergent views on the issue and it was deemed necessary that a five judge bench be constituted to consider whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear such appeals.

 

Issues

  1. Whether in the absence of an express provision of a right of appeal in an arbitration agreement a party to arbitral proceedings has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court given under section 35 of the Arbitration Act, 1995.
  2. Whether the general jurisdiction to hear appeals, which is conferred on the Court by article 164 of the Constitution is distinct from a right of appeal.
  3. Whether the Civil Procedure Rules would be applicable in arbitration proceedings.

Appeal – right of appeal - appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court in an arbitration agreement - whether in the absence of an express provision of a right of appeal in an arbitration agreement a party to arbitral proceedings has a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal from a decision of the High Court given under section 35 of the Arbitration Act, 1995 - Arbitration Act, sections 35,39

Constitutional Law – jurisdiction of the Courts to hear appeal - whether the general jurisdiction to hear appeals conferred on the Court by the Constitution is distinct from a right of appeal – Constitution of Kenya 2010,article 164

Arbitration – procedure in Arbitration proceedings – whether the Civil Procedure Rules would apply in Arbitration Proceedings – Arbitration Rules, rule 11

Statutes – interpretation of statutes – interpretation of the phrase “Notwithstanding - the effect and implication of the words “Notwithstanding under sections 10 and 35”,- whether the interpretation of the said sections allowed an appeal to the Court of Appeal – Arbitration Act section 10, 35

 

Held

Per JW Mwera JA

  1. The right to appeal was expressly granted by law and not by implication. And a party had to show which law donated the right of appeal intended to be exercised. In the instant  case, section 35 did not grant the right of appeal tothe appellantand it had not demonstrated any other statutory provision that accorded it such a right, thereby making its appeal  incompetent and thus a nullity.
  2. The principle on which arbitration was founded, namely that the parties agree on their own, to take disputes between or among them from the courts  for determination by a body put forth by themselves and adding to all that as in the instant case, that the arbitrators’ award had to  be final. It could be taken that as long as the given award subsisted it was theirs. But in the event it was set aside as was the case, that decision of the High Court was final.
  3. The High Court’s decision was final and must be considered and respected to be so because the parties voluntarily choose it to be so. They put that in their agreement. They desired limited participation by the courts in their affairs and that had been achieved. Despite the loss or gain either party might impute to, the setting aside remained where it fell. The courts, including the Court of Appeal, should respect the will and desire of the parties to arbitration.
  4. Article 164(3) of the Constitution, section 3(1) of the appellateJurisdiction Act and even section 75 of the Civil Procedure Act, that gave the Courtof Appeal jurisdiction to hear appeals from the High Court, should not be read to mean that those provisions of law also conferred the right of appeal on the litigants. The power or authority to hear an appeal was not synonymous with the right of appeal which a litigant should demonstrate that a given law gave him or her the right to come before the Court of Appeal.Even if jurisdiction and the right of appeal might be referred to side by side or in the same breath, the two terms did not mean one and the same thing.
  5.  Jurisdiction as well as the right of appeal had to be conferred by law, not by implication or inference. If the power and authority of or for a court to entertain a matter (jurisdiction) was not conferred by law then that court has no business to entertain the matter.
  6. The Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to hear any matters coming on appeal from the High Court and any other court or tribunal prescribed by law. But a party who desired his appeal to be heard at the Court of Appeal had a duty to demonstrate under what law that right to be heard was conferred, or if not, show that leave had been granted to lodge the appeal . However, it had to be appreciated that such leave did not constitute the right to appeal. The right had to precede leave.

Per W Karanja, (J Mohammed JA concurring)

  1. There was no right of appeal under section 35 of the Arbitration Act. The  right of appeal had to be conferred by statute. It could not be inferred for the only reason that it had not been expressly denied.
  2. Section 35 of the Act did not exist in isolation and had to be read together withsection10. When that was done, one could clearly appreciate the buffer surrounding the arbitral process that the Arbitration Act had put in place. The reason for that was that although the Act was a national legislation, it had tobe in harmony with the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNICITRAL) model Law on which it was modeled. It had to be in harmony also with the other international requirements and standards because it dealt with both domestic and international arbitration.
  3. The clear provisions in the Arbitration Act could not be displaced by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules except as provided for in the Act itself as succinctly provided in section10. Moreover, Rule 11 of the Arbitration Rules provided that the Civil Procedure Rules shall apply to arbitral proceedings under the Act “so far as is appropriate”. That would apply where there was a lacuna particularly in the rules of procedure but could not override clear statutory provisions such as sections 10 and 35 of the Act.
  4. No right of appeal was provided for in arbitral awards save for matters pegged on section 39 of the Act. A right of appeal wasconferred by statute and could not be inferred.
  5. On the application of section 3A and 3B of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act,  theCourt of Appeal had pronounced itself succinctly in several matters on what had come to be known as the “Oxygen Rule”. It was not a cure for all shortcomings (perceived or otherwise) in Kenyan laws to be applied with abandon even where there existed rules of procedure to cater for the situations in question. Those provisions were not meant to replace any rules, but rather to complement them in instances where the law or applicable rules were deficient or otherwise insufficient.
  6. The Arbitration Act was self-sufficient in itself, but where necessary it called in aid rules of procedure from the Civil Procedure Rules through Rule 11 of the Arbitration Rules but not otherwise.
  7. Article 163(4) was not a carte blanche for any litigant to come to the Court of Appeal on any matter even where leave had hitherto been considered a pre-requisite. That was not an obstruction to access to justice.
  8. Section 10 and 35 of the Arbitration Act had to be interpreted within the context of the concept of finality as internationally recognized in arbitral proceedings conducted under the UNICITRAL model. They were not unconstitutional at all. Arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism was not imposed on parties, they choose it freely when they incorporate the arbitration agreement into their contract, and at times even include the finality clause as was the instant case. When they do so, they send the message that they do not wish to be subjected to the long, tedious, expensive and sometimes inconvenient journey that commercial litigation entailed.  That was what party autonomy, a concept that the courts treated with deference was all about.
  9. When parties expressly exclude court intervention in their arbitration agreement, then they should honour it and embrace the consequences.  They could not turn round and claim that the very law they had freely chosen to govern their business was unconstitutional. That was what the respondent was trying to do.
  10. Finality as a concept in arbitration was shared worldwide by states that had modeled their Act on the UNICITRAL Model like Kenya. The common thread running through all those Acts was the restriction of court intervention except where necessary and in line with the provisions of the Act.  Sections 35 and 37 of the Act were wholly exclusive except where a particular clause invited the intervention of the Court.
  11. Obiter  “Our courts must therefore endeavor to remain steadfast with the rest of the international community we trade with that have embraced the international trade practices espoused in the UNICITRAL Model. If we fail to do so, we may become what Nyamu J. (as he then was) in Prof. Lawrence Gumbe & Anor –v - Hon.Mwai Kibaki & Others, High Court Misc. Application No. 1025/2004 referred to as; “A Pariah state and could be isolated internationally.”

Per Musinga J A

  1. Whereas  article 3 of the Constitution generally gave the Court of Appeal jurisdiction to hear appeals from the High Court, that per se did not accord a party to arbitral proceedings a right of appeal save as provided for under the arbitration agreement and/or the Act. Article 164 of the Constitution did not confer an automatic right of appeal in respect of each and every decision of the High Court. There was a clear distinction between the general jurisdiction of the Court to hear appeals from the High Court as conferred to it by the Constitution and a right of appeal which was vested on a litigant by statute and that right was not absolute, it might be ousted or circumscribed by statute.
  2. The appellant’s right to appeal to the Court of Appeal was not constitutionally guaranteed and could not be curtailed by a statutory limitation.
  3. Article 159(c) of the Constitution enjoined the Judiciary to promote alternative forms of dispute resolution including reconciliation, mediation and arbitration, to that extent, arbitration was constitutionally recognized as one of the methods of resolving disputes and where parties choose that route, the guiding law was the Arbitration Act
  4. Kenya had adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on international commercial arbitration which stipulated that courts of law could not intervene in an arbitral process except in circumstances as provided by the law. Courts had instead played a supportive role. Kenya’s Arbitration Act provided for both domestic and international arbitration
  5. Section 39(3), provided the only instance where the Court of Appeal could intervene after the High Court had pronounced itself on an application to set aside an arbitral award. The contextual meaning of the word “Notwithstanding” as used in section 39(3) is “inspite of” or “regardless of”.
  6. The right of appeal conferred by section 39 was an exception to the non-intervention policy, the running theme in the Act. To hold that the word “Notwithstanding” as used in section 39(3) of the Act is ineffectual would not only be an absurdity but also a deliberate violation of an important principle of statutory interpretation that “When the legislature enacts a particular phrase in a statute the presumption is that it is saying something which has not been said immediately before.”
  7. Section 10 debars court intervention in arbitral proceedings except as may be permitted by the Act. The section was not unconstitutional to the contrary, it affirmed the Constitutional provision that required the Judiciary to promote alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. To promote, in this context, means to “further the progress of; support or encourage” the advancement of a concept. The Court would not be promoting arbitration if it kept on intervening in any of its processes, save as required by the Arbitration Act, that would be negating the spirit of the Act.
  8. The appellant herein has no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. Such an appeal could only lie if the parties had so agreed in advance in their arbitration agreement prior to the delivery of the award or if the Court of Appeal, being satisfied that a point of law of general importance was involved, the determination of which would substantially affect the rights of one or more of the parties, grants leave to appeal, which was not the case here.
  9. No court should interfere in any arbitral process except as in the manner specifically agreed upon by the parties or in particular instances stipulated by the Arbitration Act. The principle of finality of arbitral awards as enshrined in the UNCITRAL Model law that had been adopted by many nations had to be respected. The parties herein had agreed that the Arbitrators decision shall be final and binding upon each of them.  Since they did not agree that any appeal would lie, the appeal by the appellant was an unjustifiable attempt to wriggle out of an agreement freely entered into and had to be rejected.

Per M’inoti JA

  1. The following salient features of section 35 underline the deliberate policy of the Act to limit intervention by courts in arbitral proceedings.
  1. Section 35 sets out the only situations under which the High Court might set aside an arbitral award. The section provided a closed catalogue of circumstances that justify intervention by the courts in an arbitral award, leaving no room for intervention on grounds other than those stipulated in the provision. For the purposes of intervention by the courts in arbitral proceedings, section 35 sets out the “absolute maximum” grounds for setting aside an arbitral award.
  2. the grounds upon which the courts may set aside an arbitral award are of a pretty serious nature, such as incapacity of a party; illegality of the arbitral proceedings; breach of the rules of natural justice; excess of jurisdiction; fraud; bribery; corruption; undue influence and breaches of public policy. The serious nature of the grounds recognized to justify setting aside an arbitral award serves, to eliminate run-of-the mill complaints, grievances and disaffections as basis for intervention.
  3.  the deference with which the arbitral award is held in the Act is underlined by the fact made clear by section 35(2)(a)(iv), that even where the arbitrator has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, if it is possible to sever the part of the award that was properly within the remit of the arbitrator from that which was not, the court had to opt for that approach. The effect was to respect and uphold the part of the award that was properly within the arbitrator’s mandate, without allowing it to be undermined or contaminated by the one that was not.
  4. The provision empowers the High Court to suspend proceedings before it, which seek to set aside an arbitral award, so as to give the arbitrator an opportunity to rectify any faults, which would have otherwise justified intervention by the court. In this provision, one sees the court being required, as much as possible, to exercise restraint in intervening in arbitral awards and proceedings and to give the arbitration process opportunity to resolve the dispute. In other words, the courts are being requested, as much as possible, to defer to arbitration.
  5. Section 35 provides a strict time frame within which the application seeking the intervention of the High Court in arbitral awards must be made. Failure to observe the prescribed time limit leads to forfeiture of the right to question the award or to ask the High Court to intervene.
  6. Section 35 does not provide a party, who is aggrieved by a decision of the High Court in the exercise of the powers conferred by that provision, a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. The provision was completely silent on the right of a further appeal. Thatsilence raised a fundamental question whether the failure of the provision to provide expressly for a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal, while the provision was otherwise very clear in its policy and intent to limit intervention by the courts in arbitral awards, was a deliberate choice or an accidental omission. That was the crux of the application.
  1. Under section 39 of the Act, intervention by the courts in arbitral proceedings or awards was predicated upon agreement by the parties themselves. Where therefore the parties had agreed to refer any question of law arising in the course of the arbitration to the court, or to appeal any question of law arising from an award to the court, the High Court would properly assume jurisdiction.
  2. Under section 39 the courts would still not intervene in arbitral proceedings unless the parties had agreed to such intervention. Out of deference to arbitration, even in cases where the High Court was properly seized of a matter arising from arbitral proceedings under section 39, the court was empowered, if it deemed it appropriate, to refer the matter back to the arbitrator for reconsideration or to a new arbitrator, when one had subsequently been appointed.
  3. The right of appeal to the Court of Appeal was created by section 39 (3) of the Act. That right was not automatic on the contrary, it was fairly circumscribed. For the right of appeal to arise, the High Court had to have made a determination in arbitral proceedings under section 39(2) of the Act, (i.e., the parties have agreed to refer questions of law arising in the arbitral proceedings or in the arbitral award to the High Court, and the High Court had determined the issue or referred it back to the arbitrator or a newly appointed arbitrator for determination).Moreover, to entitle any of the parties to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the determination of the High Court, the parties must have agreed prior to the making of the arbitration award that an appeal would lie to the Court of Appeal from the determination of the High Court. Beyond that, the only other instance when an appeal would lie to the Court of Appeal from a determination of the High Court under section 39(2) was where the Court of Appeal had granted leave to appeal on the ground that a point of law of general importance, the determination of which would substantially affect the rights of any of the parties, was involved in the intended appeal.
  4. Section 35 did not expressly provide such right of appeal. On the contrary its intention was to limit intervention of the courts, including intervention by appellate courts like the Court of Appeal in arbitral awards. The clearest indication that there was no right of appeal provided for under section 35 and that no such right of appeal was intended lay in the terms of section 39(3) of the Act, which provided for the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
  5. The effect and implication of the words “Notwithstanding under sections 10 and 35”, was that both sections 10 and 35 of the Act did not allow an appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, where the circumstances provided for in section 39(3) arose, there was a right of appeal, irrespective of, or in spite of the prohibition of appeals by section 10 and 35. The phrase “Notwithstanding under sections 10 and 35” in section 39(3) meant that an appeal was permitted under section 39, without being affected by the bar or prohibition of appeals in sections 10 and 35. Those words in section 39 could not, with respect have been the basis for arguing that there was a right of appeal recognized in section 35. Properly interpreted, it meant quite the very opposite, namely that there was no right of appeal conferred by sections 10 and 35.
  6. The rationale behind the limited intervention of courts in arbitral proceedings and awards lay in what was referred to as the principle of party autonomy. At the heart of that principle was the proposition that it was for the parties to choose how best to resolve a dispute between them. Where the parties had consciously opted to resolve their dispute through arbitration, intervention by the courts in the dispute was the exception rather than the rule.

Application allowed, Suit struck out.

Read More

Isaac Kaaria Inoti V Meru University Of Science And Technology & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Cause 1308 of 2014 Date Delivered: 06 Mar 2015

Judge: Nelson Jorum Abuodha

Court: Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi

Parties: Isaac Kaaria Inoti v Meru University Of Science And Technology & Japhet Kithnji Magambo

Citation: Isaac Kaaria Inoti V Meru University Of Science And Technology & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Gerald Wathiu Kiragu V Republic [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 110 of 2011 Date Delivered: 06 Mar 2015

Judge: Jairus Ngaah

Court: High Court at Nyeri

Parties: Gerald Wathiu Kiragu v Republic

Citation: Gerald Wathiu Kiragu V Republic [2015] eKLR

Read More

Njuguna S. Ndung’u V Ethics & Anti Corruption Commission & 3 Others [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 304 of 2014 (Ur 227/2014 Date Delivered: 06 Mar 2015

Judge: John Wycliffe Mwera, Patrick Omwenga Kiage, Stephen Gatembu Kairu

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Njuguna S. Ndung’u v Ethics & Anti Corruption Commission , Director Of Public Prosecutons , Inspector General Of Police & Attorney GeneraL

Citation: Njuguna S. Ndung’u V Ethics & Anti Corruption Commission & 3 Others [2015] eKLR

Read More

Luisi Mutulu Ngua V Nicholas Mwanza Ikunga [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Elc Civil Appeal 31 of 2014 Date Delivered: 06 Mar 2015

Judge: Mutungi Charles Kariuki

Court: High Court at Machakos

Parties: Luisi Mutulu Ngua v Nicholas Mwanza Ikunga

Citation: Luisi Mutulu Ngua V Nicholas Mwanza Ikunga [2015] eKLR

Read More

Fursys (K) Limited V Systems Intergrated Limited T/a Symphony Limited [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Application 279 of 2014 Date Delivered: 06 Mar 2015

Judge: Philomena Mbete Mwilu

Court: Court of Appeal at Nairobi

Parties: Fursys (K) Limited v Systems Intergrated Limited t/a Symphony Limited

Citation: Fursys (K) Limited V Systems Intergrated Limited T/a Symphony Limited [2015] eKLR

Read More

Mnang'at Stephen Pamba & Another V James Mariach Kokita & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Land Case 18 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Elija Ogoti Obaga

Court: Environment and Land Court at Kitale

Parties: Mnang'at Stephen Pamba & Salome Chepkemei Losiangole v James Mariach Kokita & Veronica C. Akokor

Citation: Mnang'at Stephen Pamba & Another V James Mariach Kokita & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Zubeir Mohamed Al-Amin V Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 19 of 2014 (O S) Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: Zubeir Mohamed Al-Amin v Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin

Citation: Zubeir Mohamed Al-Amin V Mohamed Mohamed Al-Amin [2015] eKLR

Read More

Benard Othieno Oduor V Benventure Ouma Ogola [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Succession Cause 50 of 2009 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Francis Tuiyott

Court: High Court at Busia

Parties: Benard Othieno Oduor v Benventure Ouma Ogola

Citation: Benard Othieno Oduor V Benventure Ouma Ogola [2015] eKLR

Read More

Safaricom Limited V Ocean View Beach Hotel Limited & 2 Others [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 51 of 2009 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: Safaricom Limited v Ocean View Beach Hotel Limited, Salim Sultan Moloo & Alsai (K) Limited

Citation: Safaricom Limited V Ocean View Beach Hotel Limited & 2 Others [2015] eKLR

Read More

Vitalis Peter Lukiri V George Odongo Ogwang' [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Elc Suit 540 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Pauline Nyamweya

Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Parties: Vitalis Peter Lukiri v George Odongo Ogwang'

Citation: Vitalis Peter Lukiri V George Odongo Ogwang' [2015] eKLR

Read More

George Albert Ambuga V Kajiado County Government & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: ELC Civil 1113 of 2013 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Onguto Joseph Louis Omondi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: George Albert Ambuga v Kajiado County Government & Wesley Kasuku Lesanjo

Citation: George Albert Ambuga V Kajiado County Government & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

John Mathiaka Kimundu V Lawrence Mwangi T/A Lawrence Mwangi & Co. Advocates [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 65 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Janet Nzilani Mulwa

Court: High Court at Nakuru

Parties: John Mathiaka Kimundu v Lawrence Mwangi T/A Lawrence Mwangi & Co. Advocates

Citation: John Mathiaka Kimundu V Lawrence Mwangi T/A Lawrence Mwangi & Co. Advocates [2015] eKLR

Read More

Tanzania National Roads Agency V Kundan Singh Construction Ltd & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 8 of 2000 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: Tanzania National Roads Agency v Kundan Singh Construction Ltd & Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd

Citation: Tanzania National Roads Agency V Kundan Singh Construction Ltd & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

E J Austin & 2 Others V Rim Gong Kyu & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 335 of 2001 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: E J Austin, M E Austin & Austin & Partners Ltd v Rim Gong Kyu & Chon Jeum Suk Kim

Citation: E J Austin & 2 Others V Rim Gong Kyu & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Eunice Auma Onyango V Salin Akinyi Oluoch [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous Civil Application 2 of 2015 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Migori

Parties: Eunice Auma Onyango v Salin Akinyi Oluoch

Citation: Eunice Auma Onyango V Salin Akinyi Oluoch [2015] eKLR

Read More

Kundan Singh Construction International Limited V Bank Of Africa Kenya Ltd & Another [2015]eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 71 of 2015 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Eric Kennedy Okumu Ogola

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

Parties: Kundan Singh Construction International Limited v Bank of Africa Kenya Ltd & Kenya Commercial Bank

Citation: Kundan Singh Construction International Limited V Bank Of Africa Kenya Ltd & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Chris Nyakundi (Suing Through His Attorney Jeremiah Matagaro V Mimosa Plantations Ltd & 4 Others [2015] eKLR

Case Number: ELC Cause 1474 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Onguto Joseph Louis Omondi

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Chris Nyakundi (Suing through his Attorney Jeremiah Matagaro v Mimosa Plantations Ltd, Ezekiel Misango Mutisya, Zephr Holdings Ltd,Nairobi District Land Registrar & National Land Commission

Citation: Chris Nyakundi (Suing Through His Attorney Jeremiah Matagaro V Mimosa Plantations Ltd & 4 Others [2015] eKLR

Read More

Vijay Kant Walia & Another V Shalini Dacunha & 4 Others [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Elc 35 of 2015 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Munyao Sila

Court: Environment and Land Court at Nakuru

Parties: Vijay Kant Walia & Raj Walia v Shalini Dacunha,Ranjana Ahluwalia,Meera Chaudhrey, Anita Pirbhai & C Bonser & Co Ltd

Citation: Vijay Kant Walia & Another V Shalini Dacunha & 4 Others [2015] eKLR

Read More

Trustee Of Jesus Worship V David M. Mutungi

Case Number: Civil Suit 106 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: Trustee of Jesus Worship v David M. Mutungi

Citation: Trustee Of Jesus Worship V David M. Mutungi

Read More

Janet Wamuyu Mbao V Aga Khan Health Services Limited T/A Aga Khan Hospital, Nairobi [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 1539 of 2000 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: David A Onyancha

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Janet Wamuyu Mbao v Aga Khan Health Services Limited T/A Aga Khan Hospital, Nairobi

Citation: Janet Wamuyu Mbao V Aga Khan Health Services Limited T/A Aga Khan Hospital, Nairobi [2015] eKLR

Read More

Galma Abagaro Shano V Republic [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 41 of 2011 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Stella Ngali Mutuku

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Galma Abagaro Shano v Republic

Citation: Galma Abagaro Shano V Republic [2015] eKLR

Read More

Lydia Munyatta M'aruyaru (the Administratrix Of The Estate Of The Late M'aruyaru M'ayuki V Tigania West District Land Adjudication And Settlement Officer & 7 Others [2015] eKLR

Case Number: E.L.C. 59 of 2010 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Bwonwong'a Justus Momanyi

Court: High Court at Embu

Parties: Lydia Munyatta M'aruyaru (the administratrix of the Estate of the late M'aruyaru M'ayuki v Tigania West District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer,Attorney General,Ebuthania Rutere,Douglas Mwngithia,Raphal Itaru,Silvester Kinoti Rutere,Joseph Kinoti & Mugambi M'lingera

Citation: Lydia Munyatta M'aruyaru (the Administratrix Of The Estate Of The Late M'aruyaru M'ayuki V Tigania West District Land Adjudication And Settlement Officer & 7 Others [2015] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Emily Taabu Mayabi & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 27 of 2011 (Murder) Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Ruth Nekoye Sitati

Court: High Court at Kakamega

Parties: Republic v Emily Taabu Mayabi & Jackline Auma Ouma

Citation: Republic V Emily Taabu Mayabi & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Chania Gardens Limited V Gilbi Construction Company Limited & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Miscellaneous Cause 482 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Francis Gikonyo

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Chania Gardens Limited v Gilbi Construction Company Limited & Festus M. Litiku

Citation: Chania Gardens Limited V Gilbi Construction Company Limited & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

SKM V Republic [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Appeal 2 of 2015 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Florence Nyaguthii Muchemi

Court: High Court at Embu

Parties: SKM v Republic

Citation: SKM V Republic [2015] eKLR

Read More

David Mwangi Muiruri V Brian Robert Pooley [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 20 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Said Juma Chitembwe

Court: High Court at Malindi

Parties: David Mwangi Muiruri v Brian Robert Pooley

Citation: David Mwangi Muiruri V Brian Robert Pooley [2015] eKLR

Read More

Galma Abagaro Shano V Republic [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 41 of 2011 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Stella Ngali Mutuku

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Galma Abagaro Shano v Republic

Citation: Galma Abagaro Shano V Republic [2015] eKLR

Read More

Anne Barongo V Awliyo Abdi Ahmed & 2 Others [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Environmental and Land Civil Suit 731 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Pauline Nyamweya

Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Parties: Anne Barongo v Awliyo Abdi Ahmed, Managing Trustee, NSSF & Geoinfo Surveys Limited

Citation: Anne Barongo V Awliyo Abdi Ahmed & 2 Others [2015] eKLR

Read More

Morris Oluoch Omogi & Another V Beatrice Sirago [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Succession Cause 83 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Esther Nyambura Maina

Court: High Court at Kisumu

Parties: Morris Oluoch Omogi & Jared Ochieng Omogi v Beatrice Sirago

Citation: Morris Oluoch Omogi & Another V Beatrice Sirago [2015] eKLR

Read More

Peter Muriuki Rwagi V Standard Investment Bank Ltd [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 464 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Francis Gikonyo

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

Parties: Peter Muriuki Rwagi v Standard Investment Bank Ltd

Citation: Peter Muriuki Rwagi V Standard Investment Bank Ltd [2015] eKLR

Read More

Shafina Magre & Another V Aga Khan Health Services (K) Limited T/A Aga Khan University Hospital & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 226 of 2010 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: David A Onyancha

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: Shafina Magre & Khurrum Magre v Aga Khan Health Services (K) Limited T/A Aga Khan University Hospital & Maria Carvalho

Citation: Shafina Magre & Another V Aga Khan Health Services (K) Limited T/A Aga Khan University Hospital & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Lilian Nkirote Marete V Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Lands, Housing & Urgan Dvpt & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Elc Civil 1189 of 2013 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Onguto Joseph Louis Omondi

Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Parties: Lilian Nkirote Marete v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Lands, Housing & Urgan Dvpt & Johnson Muriuki Ruthuthi

Citation: Lilian Nkirote Marete V Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Lands, Housing & Urgan Dvpt & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Comp West Limited V Francis Katei Rapaine & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Elc 1117 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Onguto Joseph Louis Omondi

Court: Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Parties: Comp West Limited v Francis Katei Rapaine & Benjamin Kupure Rapaine

Citation: Comp West Limited V Francis Katei Rapaine & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Kamau James Njendu V Serah Wanjiru Mburu Registrar Of Titles Nyandarua [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Elc 19 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Munyao Sila

Court: Environment and Land Court at Nakuru

Parties: Kamau James Njendu v Serah Wanjiru Mburu Registrar of Titles Nyandarua

Citation: Kamau James Njendu V Serah Wanjiru Mburu Registrar Of Titles Nyandarua [2015] eKLR

Read More

Muriuki Musa Hassan V Rose Kanyua Musa & 4 Others [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Succession Cause 62 of 2012 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: James Aaron Makau

Court: High Court at Meru

Parties: Muriuki Musa Hassan v Rose Kanyua Musa, Sarah Gauku Musa, Naomi Kaguri Thuranira,Caroline Kathure Kirigia & Jeremiah Kiambati Majau

Citation: Muriuki Musa Hassan V Rose Kanyua Musa & 4 Others [2015] eKLR

Read More

John Oyoo Olare V Joseph Oreyo Tana & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Succession Cause 469 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: David Shikomera Majanja

Court: High Court at Migori

Parties: John Oyoo Olare v Joseph Oreyo Tana & Gabriel Aluga Tana

Citation: John Oyoo Olare V Joseph Oreyo Tana & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

A.K. Abdulgani V Geoffrey Nzioka Ndumbu [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal 247 of 2010 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Amraphael Mbogholi-Msagha

Court: High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)

Parties: A.K. Abdulgani v Geoffrey Nzioka Ndumbu

Citation: A.K. Abdulgani V Geoffrey Nzioka Ndumbu [2015] eKLR

Read More

Fred Ben Okoth V Equator Bottlers Ltd [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Appeal 45 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: David Kenani Maraga, Wanjiru Karanja, Sankale Ole Kantai

Court: Court of Appeal at Kisumu

Parties: Fred Ben Okoth v Equator Bottlers Ltd

Citation: Fred Ben Okoth V Equator Bottlers Ltd [2015] eKLR

Read More

Halifax Capital Corporation Limited V Anne Wamani Njoroge & Kinuthia Njoroge [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 246 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Fred Andago Ochieng

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

Parties: Halifax Capital Corporation Limited v Anne Wamani Njoroge & Kinuthia Njoroge [

Citation: Halifax Capital Corporation Limited V Anne Wamani Njoroge & Kinuthia Njoroge [2015] eKLR

Read More

Fahim H Amir T/a Fahim H Amir Transporter V Tumaini Transport Services Co Ltd [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 43 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: Fahim H Amir t/a Fahim H Amir Transporter v Tumaini Transport Services Co Ltd

Citation: Fahim H Amir T/a Fahim H Amir Transporter V Tumaini Transport Services Co Ltd [2015] eKLR

Read More

Reliable Electrical Engineers Ltd & Another V Kenya Petroleum Refinery Ltd [2015]

Case Number: Civil Suit 24 & 29 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: Reliable Electrical Engineers Ltd & Nircon Construction Ltd v Kenya Petroleum Refinery Ltd

Citation: Reliable Electrical Engineers Ltd & Another V Kenya Petroleum Refinery Ltd [2015]

Read More

Justus Munyinyi Macharia T/a Gusii Proprietary Club V Dakiang’a Distributors Limited [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Case 397 of 2012 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Alfred Mabeya

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

Parties: Justus Munyinyi Macharia t/a Gusii Proprietary Club v Dakiang’a Distributors Limited

Citation: Justus Munyinyi Macharia T/a Gusii Proprietary Club V Dakiang’a Distributors Limited [2015] eKLR

Read More

Morris Oluoch Omogi & Another V Beatrice Sirago [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Succ Cause 83 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Esther Nyambura Maina

Court: High Court at Kisumu

Parties: Morris Oluoch Omogi & Jared Ochieng Omogi v Beatrice Sirago

Citation: Morris Oluoch Omogi & Another V Beatrice Sirago [2015] eKLR

Read More

V Chokaa & Co. Advocates V Municipal Council Of Mombasa [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Misc. Civil Application 346 of 2012 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: V Chokaa & Co. Advocates v Municipal Council of Mombasa

Citation: V Chokaa & Co. Advocates V Municipal Council Of Mombasa [2015] eKLR

Read More

Said Majid Said V James Titus Kisia [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Civil Suit 149 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: Said Majid Said v James Titus Kisia

Citation: Said Majid Said V James Titus Kisia [2015] eKLR

Read More

Harun Mnjau V Sagalla Ranchers Ltd & Another [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Winding Up Cause 1 of 2014 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Mary Muhanji Kasango

Court: High Court at Mombasa

Parties: Harun Mnjau v Sagalla Ranchers Ltd & Eliud T. Mwamunga

Citation: Harun Mnjau V Sagalla Ranchers Ltd & Another [2015] eKLR

Read More

Republic V Pius Mukhwana [2015] eKLR

Case Number: Criminal Case 39 of 2010 Date Delivered: 05 Mar 2015

Judge: Ruth Nekoye Sitati

Court: High Court at Kakamega

Parties: Republic v Pius Mukhwana

Citation: Republic V Pius Mukhwana [2015] eKLR

Read More