Kenya Case Law

Jackson Ruiru v Kenya Revenue Authority

Jackson Ruiru v Kenya Revenue Authority [2017] KEHC 2044 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 22 of 1998

Judge

K Kimondo

The court found that the seizure of the plaintiff's lorry by the Kenya Revenue Authority was irregular and unlawful. The Notice of Seizure was not properly served, was addressed incorrectly, and the lorry itself was not uncustomed as all duties had been paid. The plaintiff was acquitted in related criminal proceedings, which was conclusive evidence that he did not acquire uncustomed goods or divert goods into the local market. The defendant's counterclaim for penalties and warehouse rent was dismissed as the seizure was not justified. The plaintiff was entitled to general damages for unlawful…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Seizure Of Property
• Loss Of Use Damages
• Special And General Damages
• Counterclaim For Penalties
• Customs And Excise Liability
• Transport Contracts

KAMONGO WASTE PAPER LIMITED v AFRICA WASTE PAPER LIMITED & MALDE TRANSPORTERS LIMITED

KAMONGO WASTE PAPER LIMITED v AFRICA WASTE PAPER LIMITED & MALDE TRANSPORTERS LIMITED [2010] KEHC 1437 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 25 & 26 of 2008

Judge

FI Koome

The High Court granted summary judgment against Africa Waste Paper Limited for unpaid goods but refused summary judgment against Malde Transporters Limited because triable issues remained.

• Summary Judgment
• Goods Sold And Delivered
• Guarantee Liability
• Transport Contracts
• Triable Issues
• Liquidated Claims

ALPHA LOGISTICS (K) LTD & PAUL KERAYIAN KANTAI v UPLIFT EXPRESS LIMITED & MUSA IBRAHIM T/A BIN HASHAM TRANSPORTERS

ALPHA LOGISTICS (K) LTD & PAUL KERAYIAN KANTAI v UPLIFT EXPRESS LIMITED & MUSA IBRAHIM T/A BIN HASHAM TRANSPORTERS [2009] KEHC 3205 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 78 of 2009

Judge

LK Kimaru

The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier ruling. The grounds advanced by the plaintiffs, including the alleged failure to appreciate their case and the manner in which the contract was performed, were found to be matters for appeal rather than review. The court emphasized that review is not a mechanism for re-arguing a case or for the court to sit on appeal over its own decision. Since no glaring or self-evident error was identified, the application for review was dismissed as lacking merit.

Source excerpt

• Review Of Court Orders
• Error Apparent On Face Of Record
• Contract Frustration
• Transport Contracts

Alpha Logistic (K) Ltd & another v Uplift Express Limited & another

Alpha Logistic (K) Ltd & another v Uplift Express Limited & another [2009] KEHC 2968 (KLR)

Court

High Court

Case number

Civil Case 78 of 2009

Judge

LK Kimaru

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for the grant of interlocutory or mandatory injunctions. The transportation contract was frustrated by the plaintiffs' failure to ensure the consignment complied with legal weight limits, resulting in the lorry's detention and a fine imposed on the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant refunded the transport fee and was not responsible for the excess weight or the resulting inability to complete the contract. The 2nd defendant's failure to transport the consignment was similarly attributable to the plaintiffs' failure to ma…

Source excerpt

• Interlocutory Injunctions
• Mandatory Injunctions
• Contract Frustration
• Transport Contracts