The applicant instituted proceedings as a matter of urgency. The application was lodged in this Court on 15 May 2020, and heard on 29 May 2019. The final and the interim relief sought by the applicant have been formulated as follows:
“Terms of the final order sought:
1. That it be and is hereby declared that the election of the applicant is lawful as it was in consequence of section 103 (4) as read section 103 (3) (iii) of the Urban Councils Act (Chapter 29:15).
2. Alternatively, that it be and is hereby ordered that applicant’s election occurred after 2ndrespondent‘s... More
This is an application for dismissal for want of prosecution of the main matter which is HC 1627/20. The application is made in terms of Rule 236 (4) of the High Court Rules 1971.
The chronology of events is that on the 23rd of September 2020, the respondents instituted a court application in HC 1627/20 and the application was opposed on 2 October 2020. That on 4 November 2020 the applicant in that matter filed an answering affidavit. That in terms of Rule 236 (4) of the High Court Rules 1971, where the applicant would have filed an answering affidavit... More
This is an appeal against conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard on 10 January 2024 and it was dismissed it in its entirety in an ex tempore judgment.The appellant pleaded not guilty. In his defence he explained that he was not denying the charge but this was a fight between him and the complainant. After hearing evidence from three state witnesses the court a quo dismissed the appellant’s story and was satisfied the witnesses were credible. There was no fight but the complainant was assaulted with unknown weapons and bricks in an attempt to rob him. The savage attack... More
This is an application for bail pending trial.The applicants appeared before a Regional Magistrate on trial charged with robbery as defined in section 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act, Chapter 9:23.The allegations against the applicants are briefly that they went to the complainant’s home, armed with a pistol. They threatened the maid with that pistol and made off with the complainant’s property, most of which was later recovered. More
The two applicants are former employees of the respondent. They seek from this court an order to the effect that:1. The memorandum of agreements of voluntary retrenchment signed on 12 August 2016 between the applicants and the respondents be declared valid and binding between the parties.
2. The respondent be ordered to pay the applicants their retrenchment packages forthwith in the sums of US$11 452,00 and US$13 372,00 respectively.
3. The respondent be ordered to pay costs of suit at an attorney and client scale. More
