The applicants approached this court seeking a review in terms of ss 26-7 of the High Court Act as read with the common law, alternatively in accordance with s 4 of the Administrative Justice Act and in Accordance with Order 33, r 256 of the High Court Rules 1971. The applicants further seek that the acquisition by the first respondent be declared invalid and be set-aside.
More
The first respondent is a company in which the applicant and the second, third and fourth respondents are presented as the shareholders. The second respondent holds 70 percent shareholding while each of the other three holds 10 percent of the shares. The shareholding structure is contained in an agreement signed by the parties. In 2007 the first respondent was allocated tracts of land by the Government through the relevant Ministry. The land was meant for the development of residential properties, industrial use, commercial use, and for the construction of a hotel. The land was registered in the name of the...
More
This application is one where the respondent should suffer for its own sins as well as for the sins of its own legal practitioners. Its attitude to its case speaks volumes of its confused state of mind. The dilatory manner in which its legal practitioners handled its side of the application shows nothing but a do not care disposition to their duty towards the court and their client. The legal practitioners decided to, and did actually, sleep whilst they were on duty. Their conduct was, at best, one of indifference and, at the worst, a clearly unquestionable dereliction of duty.
More
This is an opposed application for confirmation of a provisional order issued by my sister Judge, Justice GUVAVA on 25 March 2011 calling upon the respondents to show cause why a final order should not be made upon the following terms:
More
