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 3 July 2017, we dismissed the appellants’ appeal against both conviction and sentence. We gave ex tempore reasons for our decision. The appellants have requested written reasons More
The plaintiff was involved in an accident abode a Toyota Hiace registration number ACE 1025 on 25 September 2011. The motor vehicle was being driven by the first defendant who is the owner of the said motor vehicle. More
This is an application for condonation of late noting of an application for review. The background to this matter is that the first respondent granted an arbitral award in favour of the second respondent on 17 December 2014. More
After hearing the parties on 11 July 2017 the following pronouncement was made by the Court:
“The unanimous view of this court is that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed with costs. Full reasons for judgment will be availed in due course” More
The defendant acting through its insurance broker BGI Financial Services (Private) Limited entered into agreement with the plaintiff the terms of which were that the plaintiff would repair vehicles belonging to the aforementioned insurance company’s insured clients at an agreed cost which the defendant would pay. During the period May 2014 to August 2015 the defendant through the said insurance broker referred its various clients to plaintiff for motor vehicle repairs which repairs were effected by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claims through its director Mr Allen Jones that the outstanding costs for such repairs amounted to the sum of USD12... More
This is a matter in which the plaintiff issued summons against the defendant and claimed various amounts itemised in its declaration as follows:
‘(i) 24 714,77 being unpaid money for the construction of a new deli stores area.
(ii) $16 979,42 being unpaid money for the supply and installation of a full fire scope
system
(iii) $17 801,42 being unpaid retention fee for electrical works
(iv) Interest at the prescribed rate on the claims in (i), (ii), (iii) above from 31st
July, 2014.
(v) Costs of suit on a legal practitioner and client scale. More
