This is an appeal against a judgment of the Magistrates Court (the court a quo) dismissing an application by the appellant for the correction of an order of that court.
The appeal is opposed by the respondent.
The material background facts to the matter are as follows: The appellant instituted a claim by way of summons against the respondent in the court a quo claiming payment of a sum of US$36 460.00 together with interest thereon at the prescribed rate, collection commission and attorney-client costs. More
MUSITHU J: Before the court is an application for rescission of a default judgment granted by this court in HCH 1748/24 on 19 June 2024. The application was made in terms of r 27(1) of the High Court rules, 2021. The first applicant’s founding affidavit was deposed to by the third applicant in his capacity as the authorised representative of the first applicant. The application was opposed by the first respondent. A notice of filing was issued and filed on behalf of the second and third respondents by the Civil Division of the Attorney General’s office. They indicated that they... More
On the 21st November 2023 this dismissed appeal’s appeal and upheld his dismissal from employment by respondents. The judgment was appealed to the Supreme Court which issued an order on 18th July 2024 in the following terms, More
This ruling is made pursuant to a preliminary objection raised by the third respondent’s counsel at the commencement of oral submissions in this matter. The preliminary point was concerned with the propriety of filing the record of proceedings required in terms of r 62(5) of the High Court rules, 2021 (the rules), on the eve of the hearing of this matter. More
This is an appeal from a determination made by an arbitrator. The following are the grounds of appeal and I quote:
‘1. The arbitrator misdirected herself on a question of law by failing to determine the application for recusal that had been made before her prior to the hearing of the arbitration on the merits.
2. The arbitrator erred at law in failing to find that she had no jurisdiction to adjudicate over the 2nd respondent’s claim as provided for by Section 63(3a) of the Labour Act Chapter 28:01, despite the fact that he admittedly stated in his submissions that... More
The applicant approached this court for the relief of a declaratur. The relief sought is couched in the draft order as follows:
“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: -
1. Stand number 145 on the Remaining Extent of Saturday Retreat Farm, be and is hereby declared to belong to the Applicant.
2. The 2nd Respondent be and is hereby ordered to pay costs of this Application on an Attorney-Client Scale.” More
The plaintiff seeks to recover from the two defendants, jointly or severally, the sum of US$50 000 being damages for malicious prosecution. He claims that the defendants maliciously set in motion a process that led to his arrest on allegations of fraud and his subsequent prosecution in the magistrates Court. He alleges in his declaration that the first defendant made the report of fraud against him to the police while fully knowing that there was no probable cause for doing so nor did he entertain any reasonable belief in the truthfulness of the information which he supplied to the police. More
