Pending the determination of the application for review under HC4317/22 Applicant is granted the following relief
1. First and second respondents be and are hereby interdicted fromeffectuating carrying into execution and /or performing the tender award to the second respondent described as CIP and Chemicals Tender. More
On the 17th of October 2022, I dismissed this application ex tempore with costs on the ordinary scale. I have been requested to give reasons and these are they. More
This court is generally reluctant to interfere with unterminated proceedings in the inferior courts. However, as shall be demonstrated in this case, certain exceptions warrant the intervention of this court guided by the interests of justice principle. The applicant approached this court seeking the review of the decision of the first respondent. The first respondent dismissed the application for discharge at the close of the State case which was lodged by the applicant. More precisely, the applicant prays for the following relief:
“1. The decision of the first respondent dismissing the applicant’s Application for Discharge at the Close of The... More
This is an appeal against the sentence imposed upon the appellant following his conviction on three counts of robbery as defined in s 126 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [ Chapter 9:23], one count of attempted robbery as defined in s 189 (I) (a) and (b) as read with s 126 of the same Act,one count of attempted rape as defined in s 65 as read with s 189 of the same Act, and one count of theft as defined in s 113 of the Act. More
The factual position is that this Court dismissed a court application and a counter claim in HC 1456/20 whose judgment in HH 743/20 was delivered in motion court on the 25th November 2020. On the day the judgment was delivered counsel for the applicant was not present in court despite that he was advised to attend court at 1000hrs earlier on the same day at 9.30am. The reason for his failure to attend court hearing being that he was engaged elsewhere. Dissatisfied with this court’s decisions the applicant is desirous to appeal against this court’s decision to the Supreme Court More
The appellant was dismissed from the respondent’s employ for wilful disobedience to a lawful order given by his superior. It is common cause that the appellant was asked to write a report by his superior. He did not do so despite reminders for him to comply with the order. He only did so some months later. Clearly that was wilful disobedience of a lawful order given by someone in authority. The appellant was aggrieved by the dismissal. He appealed internally. The appeal failed. More
This matter was set down for trial to commence on 6 September 2021. Counsel for the defendant rose and informed me that he intended to raise an additional preliminary point. The issue relates to what he termed the purported amendment of summons. Both counsel proposed to file supplementary heads of argument. In plaintiff’s supplementary heads of argument besides the amendment of summons and declaration issue he made additional submissions as regards the issue raised as early as the defendant’s plea, the issue of prescription. More
