On 20 January 2022 an entity called Chigami 2 Syndicate obtained judgment against the third respondent under case HC1840/21. That judgment led to the attachment of the third respondent’s equipment by the first respondent. Sometime in June 2023, the second respondent advertised the sale of the third respondent’s property in situ on 1 July 2023. The property to be sold comprised of a processing plant consisting of loading bin, crusher, vibrator, separator/sieve, siemens crusher, 2 x hammermills and separator, container control room with 3 x power control boxes (hereinafter called the equipment). The applicant was represented at the auction and... More
1. This is an appeal against conviction on two counts of rape as defined in s 65 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] (“the Code”).
2. The appellant was acquitted of one count wherein he had been charged of raping the same complainant. More
In terms of the Facility Letter which the parties signed on 15 February 2011, the plaintiff advanced the sum of $130 000.00 to the defendants. The maturity date of the loan was 15 February, 2012. More
This is an application for summary judgment in terms of r 64. The plaintiff issued summons claiming against the defendant the sum of $47 808-00 being the outstanding amount owed to it by the defendant arising from a personal loan advanced to the defendant. It also claimed interest at the rate of 15% per annum, a penalty on unpaid interest at the rate of 2 % per day from 31st August 2015 to date of payment in full plus costs on the legal practitioner and client scale. More
Applicants were arrested and charged with (i) contravening s 126 (1) (a) and (b) of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] ie. Robbery and (iii) rape as defined in s 65 1 (a) and (b) of the said Code. More
