SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

KING WOOLEN MILLS LTD formely Known as MANCHESTER OUTFITTERS SUITING DIVISION LTD & another v STANDARD CHARTERED FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD & 2 others [1995] KECA 92 (KLR)

[1995] KECA 92 (KLR) Court of Appeal
Read PDF
Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
92
Citation
[1995] KECA 92 (KLR)
Decided
3 February 1995
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivil AppealPostureAppeal from the ruling and order of the High Court at Nairobi (Mr. Justice Dugdale) dated 15th June, 1994CoramR. S. C. Omo-lo, A. M. Akwumi, P. K. Tuni-o
Holding

The appeal is allowed, and the High Court Civil Case No. 5002 of 1990 is ordered to be heard de novo before a judge other than Dugdale, J.

Facts

The appellants filed a suit against the respondents, seeking declarations that the appointment of the second respondent as receiver and manager of the first appellant's business was invalid, and that the debentures and securities given by the appellants to secure a loan were unenforceable. The appellants also sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with the running of the first appellant's business. The suit was heard by Dugdale, J., and the appellants filed an injunction against Kaplan and Stratton, a law firm, claiming they had acted for both parties during loan negotiations.

Issues

  1. Validity of the appointment of the second respondent as receiver and manager of the first appellant's business
  2. Enforceability of the debentures and securities given by the appellants to secure the loan
  3. Fairness of the trial and the judge's impartiality

Reasoning

The court allowed the appeal due to the appearance of bias by the judge, despite the appellants' delay in bringing the application. The court found that a reasonable and fair-minded person would have a reasonable suspicion that a fair trial for the appellants would not be possible.

Outcome

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court Civil Case No. 5002 of 1990 to be heard de novo before a judge other than Dugdale, J.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Metropolitan Properties case
  • In re appraising the facts as we are entitled to do
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case