|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| March 1963 |
|
|
Jurisdiction-Revision—Civil action in district court-Judgment entered ex parte and decree issued—Extension of time given to file application to set aside decree-Decree set aside—Order of district court setting aside decree set aside by High Court in its revisional jurisdiction—Power of High Court to revise interlocutory order of district court—Whether application to set aside decree and order made thereon constitute a "case which has been decided”—Subordinate Courts (Civil Procedure-Summonses and Pleadings) Rules, 1955, r. 7 (b), r. 17 and r. 23 (1) (T.)—Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, s. 115-Subordinate Courts Ordinance (Cap. 3), s. 10 (T.)—Indian Civil Procedure Rules, O. IX, r. 13—Indian Limitation Act, 1908, First Schedule, art. 164. Jurisdiction-Civil action in district court-Judgment entered ex parte and decree issued—Extension of time given to file application to set aside decree— Decree set aside—Whether district court has power to extend time for filing such application-Subordinate Courts (Civil Procedure-Summonses and Pleadings) Rules, 1955, r. 7 (b), r. 17 and r. 23 (1) (T.)—Indian Limitation Act, 1908, First Schedule, art. 164
|
21 March 1963 |
|
Criminal law-Causing death by rash or negligent act not amounting_to_man- slaughter-Death caused while driving a motor vehicle—Degree of negligence required—Driver disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving permit- Penal Code (Cap. 22), s. 219 A (U.)-Traffic Ordinance, 1951, s. 60 (1) (U.)
|
19 March 1963 |
|
Practice Appeal to Privy Council from Court of Appeal-Application for leave to appeal to be made to court within twenty-one days from date of judgment to be appealed from—Notice to be given to respondent of intended application -Notice of motion for leave to appeal filed in court within prescribed time and copy served on respondent-No separate notice of intended application given-Whether separate notice of intended application necessary. Costs-Security for costs-Appeal to Privy Council from Court of Appeal— Application for conditional leave to appeal-Appellant having previously appealed to Court of Appeal in forma pauperis-Whether court should order security for costs-Kenya (Procedure in Appeals to Privy Council) Order-in-Council, 1962, s. 4 (a)
|
11 March 1963 |
|
Drugs-Chemist-Failing to keep poisons book-No allegation of the sale of any poison-Whether charge discloses any offence—Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 416, Revised Laws), s. 29 (T.)—Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 94), s. 21 (T.). Criminal law-High Court-Revisional jurisdiction-Accused charged with com- mitting offences under Ordinance not yet in force—Acts alleged also consti- tuting offences under corresponding provisions of existing Ordinance—Pleas of guilty by accused—Convictions by magistrate-Power of High Court on revision to alter charges so as to charge offences under corresponding pro- visions of Ordinance which was in force when offences committed-Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 416, Revised Laws), s. 19 and s. 29 (T.)— Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 94), s. 5, s. 21 and s. 36 (T.)— Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, s. 4 (1)—Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 20), s. 319 (1), s. 329 (1) and s. 346 (T.)—Revised Laws and Annual Revision Ordinance, 1955, s. 15 (T.)
|
8 March 1963 |
|
Revenue-Export duty-Assessment-Coffee-Export duty payable on arabica coffee if the value exceeds shs. 3,900/- per ton of Arabica coffee exported to Kenya-Value not exceeding shs. 3,900/- per ton when exported-Arabica coffee processed and cleaned in Kenya-Processed coffee sold in Kenya at a price exceeding shs. 3,900/- per ton-Value of arabica coffee for purpose of determining incidence of export duty-Whether coffee should be valued with or without regard to processing—Basis of calculating export duty—Whether export duty payable-Coffee (Export Duty) Ordinance, 1960, s. 2, s. 3, s. 4 (4) (U.)—Bugisu Coffee Ordinance, 1962, s. 15 (2) (U.)—Coffee (Export Duty) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1962 (U.)
|
6 March 1963 |
|
Criminal law-Theft by a servant-Fraudulent conversion—Trial—Jury— Direction to jury—Jury directed that there was conversion—Question left to jury-Whether conversion fraudulent-Misdirection
|
4 March 1963 |
