[1998] KEHC 199 (KLR)

[1998] KEHC 199 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting review of the order dated 20th January, 1998 under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that the record did not support the applicant's allegations regarding unrecorded requests, and that the plaintiff, as a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1998] KEHC 199 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Renguti Gikambura Hotel Ltd; Defendant: Harun Gatobo Njuguna
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
? 3608 of 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Stay of Proceedings, Company Representation in Court
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Stay of Proceedings Company Representation in Court

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Renguti Gikambura Hotel Ltd

Plaintiff

Harun Gatobo Njuguna

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Review and Stay of Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for review of the court's order dated 20th January, 1998 under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings should be stayed pending determination of the application for review.
  3. 3 Whether a limited liability company can act in person in court proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any grounds warranting review of the order dated 20th January, 1998 under Order 44 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court held that the record did not support the applicant's allegations regarding unrecorded requests, and that the plaintiff, as a limited liability company, could not act in person. The ruling was based on the facts and merits presented, and there was no error or new evidence to justify a review. Consequently, the application for review and stay of proceedings was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application for review and stay of proceedings is dismissed with costs to the respondent.