The plaintiff issued summons against the 4 defendants as principal officer and agent (in respect of the first defendant) and as directors of a company known as Kettex Holdings (Pvt) Ltd, in which it sought payment of US$1 579 418 being the value of products delivered to Kettex Holdings (Pvt) Ltd for sale. More
The applicants approached the court with a review application seeking to have the decision of the Master (5th respondent) of accepting the last Will and Testament of the late Bidoff Hollington set aside and that the Will be declared null and void. The issue that falls for determination in this review is whether the fifth respondent’s determination is in accordance with law or not. The applicant relied on two grounds of review as follows:- More
On 5 October, 2017 after reading documents filed of record and hearing counsel I gave an order in favour of the applicant. The written reasons for my disposition are laid out herein. More
The two applicants who are being charged of the Criminal Law (Codification Reform) Act [Cap 9:23] approached the court through the legal practitioner of record on as application for bail pending trial. The state opposed the application. Both counsel for the applicants and respondents in addition to the written submissions orally addressed the court. More
The defendant filed an exception to the plaintiff’s claim as set out in the summons. It did so on the basis that the summons: did not disclose a cause of action; was vague and embarrassing as it failed to show the nature of the agreement that founded the claim; did not conform to the mandatory Commercial Court Rules. Further, the defendant also claimed that on two occasions, the plaintiff filed defective summons in the Magistrates Court which he withdrew and tendered wasted costs. The costs were not paid. The defendant implored the court to uphold the exception and dismiss the... More
