[RULING]- Civil Procedure and Practice - Order for application to be struck out - Where Advocates are not properly on record - Where Notice of Appointment nor Notice of Change of Advocate have not been entered - Order III rules 6,and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules - Order III,12 (2) Civil Procedure Rules - Section 81 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act - Service of summons notices and other processes by post - Whether court should adopt a broad and non –restrictive approach in interpretation of provisions - When preliminary objections should be taken - Whether the court can inquire into the validity of rules in Statutes - How court may exercise its discretion - Provisions of 3 (2) of the Judicature Act (Cap 8 Laws of Kenya)- The determination of casa according to substantial justice without undue regard to technicalities of procedure and without undue delay.

Insurance - plaintiff insuring his vehicle with the defendant - vehicle involved in accident giving rise to a claim against the plaintiff - claim defended by the defendant/insurer - judgment issued against the plaintiff - plaintiff's motor vehicle sold in execution of decree after insurer had failed to settle the decree - plaintiff suing the insurer for the loss of his motor vehicle.

[RULING] Civil Practice and Procedure-review-circumstances under which the court will grant an order of review-whether an application for review can be filed where a notice of appeal has been issued- Civil Procedure Rules, Order XLIV, rules 1,2,3, and 6

CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - advocate's costs - application by advocate against client for judgment plus interest on certified costs.

[RULING] ELECTION PETITION - application for particulars - applicant stating that he required the particulars to enable him to prepare his response to the petition - particulars supplied - applicant applying for particulars to be struck out on the ground that they were insufficient,scandalous and vexatious and could prejudice or delay the fair trial of the petition - request for particulars raising some 501 questions - whether prolixity in framing request for particulars proper - whether request capable of being complied with.

[RULING]Declaratory suit against an insurance company for the payment of decretal sum - interlocutory application to strike out defence for failing to comply with a consent order and for judgment as prayed in the plaint.

Action for damages for unlawful seizure,detention and damage to property - defendant alleging that the property had been seized as collateral or security on a loan - duty of defendant to establish that the person offering the property as security was its owner - failure to establish a nexus between loanee and the plaintiff - presumption arising that the defendant had taken the property with intent to debilitate the owner's economic productivity.

[RULING] CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to strike out plaint,reply to defence and defence to counterclaim and to enter judgment as prayed in the counterclaim - allgation that plaint disclosed no reasonable cause of action,the pleadings were a sham,raised no triable issues and an abuse of the court process - court considering whether the plaintiff's suit had any legal basis. AFFIDAVIT - replying affidavit - persons who are competent to swear affidavits - affidavit sworn by party's advocate - whether affidavit proper.

TORT – trespass – defendant unlawfully entered into the plaintiff’s premises and took possession of his property for a debt owed to him – where the property legally belonged to the plaintiff – factors court considers in such applications – quantum of damages assessed at five hundred and seventy eight thousand, and ninety seven shillings – validity of order

[RULING] CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - joinder of parties - application for parties to be joined as co-plaintiffs - suit against the government through the Attorney General - whether intending plaintiffs required to give one month's notice to the Attorney General of their intended suit - LIMITATION OF ACTIONS - suit alleging unlawful dismissal from employment and violations of the plaintiff's constitutional rights - cause of action alleged to have occurred in 1982 - whether the suit was statute-barred.