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

Mohamed Munir Chaudhri v Captain Musa Hassan Bulhan, Equator Airlines Ltd & African Express Airways (K) Ltd (Civil Case 1088 of 2002) [2021] KEHC 1886 (KLR) (Civ) (8 November 2021) (Judgment)

[2021] KEHC 1886 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
1886
Citation
[2021] KEHC 1886 (KLR)
Decided
8 November 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a judgment of the High Court of Kenya at Nairobi, Milimani Commercial Court, HCCC No. 1088 of 2002.CoramTuiyot
Holding

The court found that the parties did not enter into a Memorandum of Agreement on 27th October 1988.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Mohamed Munir Chaudhri, claims that he extended a loan to the 1st Defendant, Captain Musa Hassan Bulhan, and his companies, Equator Airlines Ltd and African Express Airways (K) Ltd, on 27 October 1988. The 1st Defendant denies the existence of a memorandum of agreement and claims that the companies were in receivership at the time. The Plaintiff claims a sum of Kshs.10,524,088.50 and interest.

Issues

  1. Whether the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement on 27th October 1988.
  2. Whether the said Memorandum of Agreement was valid and binding on the parties.
  3. Whether the Plaintiff's claim is time barred under the Limitations of Actions Act.
  4. Whether the provisions of Clause 7 of the Memorandum of Agreement can be invoked.
  5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the amount claimed from the Defendants in the Plaint.
  6. Who should bear the costs of the suit.

Reasoning

The Plaintiff's testimony and documents were not sufficient to prove the existence of a memorandum of agreement. The 1st Defendant's denial of the agreement and the receivership status of the companies were accepted.

Outcome

The Plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case