The plaintiff’s pleadings are a mess. They do not comply with the strict requirements of the High Court rules. The face of the summons does not identify the 13 others. The declaration does not do so either. In addition it does not comply with the rules of court. It contains extraneous information and is argumentative in nature. A letter of suspension, three death certificates, a burial order and the Supreme Court judgment SC 66/02 concerning the plaintiff and the second defendant are attached to the declaration. It is in the format of a founding affidavit rather than a declaration. When... More
This urgent chamber application involves a wrangle between two couples. Central to the dispute is a piece of land sold to the applicants by the respondents. I set the matter down for hearing on 16 March 2020. It seemed a settlement was well-nigh possible. I postponed the matter to 18 March 2021 to accord the parties more time to discuss. On 18 March 2021, the parties came back with gloves off. They were all set for legal combat. More
This is a contested action in which the plaintiff seeks damages for defamation in the sum of US$20 000-00, interest thereon from 21 July 2009, being the date on which summons was issued, to the date of payment in full and costs of suit. More
The plaintiff and defendant started living together as husband and wife in terms of customary law in 1988. On 4 June 1993 their union was solemnised in terms of the Marriages Act [Cap 5:11]. The marriage still subsists. More
“ Heads of argument referred to in subrule (2) shall be filed by the respondent’s legal practitioner not more than ten days after the heads of argument of the applicant or excipient, as the case may be, were delivered to the respondent in terms of subrule (1):
Provided that- More
