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

PROF. TABAN LO LIYONG vs MUGAMBI IMANYARA & CO. [1998] KEHC 195 (KLR)

[1998] KEHC 195 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
195
Citation
[1998] KEHC 195 (KLR)
Decided
18 December 1998
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a previous order directing the case to proceed by way of viva voce evidenceCoramJ.L.A. OSIEMO
Holding

The Plaintiff's application for review is allowed, and the order of the court dated 18th December, 1998 is hereby reviewed and set aside. The case is directed to proceed by way of affidavits.

Facts

The Plaintiff intended to purchase property in Nairobi and instructed the Defendant to identify a suitable property and negotiate for the sale. The purchase price was Shs.500,000/-, and the Defendant acted as both the vendor's and the purchaser's advocate. The Plaintiff paid Shs.1,100,000/= as a stakeholder, but the sale did not materialize, and the Plaintiff demanded his money back. The Defendant refunded Shs.300,000/= to the Plaintiff's advocate, K.N. OSMOND.

Issues

  1. Whether the Plaintiff's application for review of the order directing the case to proceed by way of viva voce evidence is meritorious
  2. Whether the Plaintiff's application for review should be granted

Reasoning

The Plaintiff did not play a personal role in the movement of the money from his bank to the Defendant, and the Defendant has conceded that they received the money and refunded part of it to the Plaintiff's advocate.

Outcome

The Plaintiff's application for review is allowed.

Orders

  • The order of the court dated 18th December, 1998 is hereby reviewed and set aside.
  • The case is directed to proceed by way of affidavits.

Remedies

  • The Plaintiff is directed to proceed with the case by way of affidavits.
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 0.0 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case