The Portfolio Recent Cases.

International Trade & Product Liability: Aviation

  • Application date 2011
  • Client Austrian airline leasing firm
  • Againstlocal Kenyan company
Feature image
The firm has been retained by international corporations and has an established client-base in international commercial transactions. Notably, the firm is currently advising and acting for an Austrian airline leasing firm in an action for breach of two aircraft leasing contracts by a local Kenyan company. Presently, we have been pivotal in repatriation of engine parts sent out by the country and in the recovery of the two Aircrafts not to mention damages. We are presently proceeding with the recovery of USD 150, 000 direct expenses used in repatriation, USD 537, 853 loss in aircraft value and USD 1, 029, 987 in loss of leasing rates.
View project

Mass Tort and Class Action: Judicial Review

  • Application date 2005
  • ClientNakuru resident
  • Against Nakuru Municipality.
Feature image
The firm is currently engaged in a Class Action suit by all the rater payers of the Nakuru Municipality. The case now pending in the Court of Appeal represents the interests of over 4 million residents of Nakuru. The appeal seeks a judicial review remedy of prohibition against the Municipal Council of Nakuru from levying rates based on a new Draft Valuation Roll 2005 or causing such roll to be certified by the Council’s Valuation Court for contravening the Valuation for Rating Act and the Rating Act. All Valuation Courts have been declared unconstitutional in a related matter making the present appeal even more intricate. The entire value of the subject matter involved is in exess 0f Kshs 1.2 billion
View project

Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Enforcement: Eminent Domain

  • Application date 2001
  • Client ohn Kabita Ngila & 22 Others
  • Against The Pipeline Company & 2 Others
Feature image
The firm has remained an ardent defender of our bill of rights as enshrined in the constitution. In yet another class action, John Kabita Ngila & 22 Others -vs- The Pipeline Company & 2 Others High Court Misc Application No. 21 of 2001, the firm has recently defended the sanctity of private property of 23 applicants as guaranteed by section 75 of the constitution. Albeit the said section grants the government inherent power to expropriate private property, the same has to be properly justified. The Court held that no certificate was issued by the minister and the four legal notices published by the respondents failed to disclose the public nature of the respondent and the public interest to be served by acquisition and this was only done later in a replying affidavit. For these reasons, the court held that one would be justified to conclude the notices to have been issued as an afterthought and were thus unconstitutional, defective and inoperative. This decision has redefined the constitution and made exceptions to the general belief that states can acquire property of individuals through compulsary acquisition as well
View project

Childrens Rights: Emerging Jurisprudence

  • Application date2001
  • Client Albeit the case of R. M. & 3 Others
  • against The Attorney General
Feature image
Albeit the case of R. M. & 3 Others -vs- The Attorney General [2006] eKLR held that all the relevant provisions as contained in various international conventions and Charters had been incorporated into the Childrens Act, No. 8 of 2001, a case we have recently handled P -vs- A reveals a glaring loophole in the Act. The Act provides in section 24 that where the mother and father of a child remains unmarried after birth, the mother has parental responsibility in the first instance. The father may then acquire responsibility as per section 25 either on application for such an order to the Court, entering a parental responsibility arrangement with the mother, subsequently cohabited with the mother for 12 months or more, acknowledged paternity or maintained the child. The Court held that the Legislature was yet to outline how paternity of a child could be determined where a man has not acknowledged paternity. Moreover, the Court noted that even in the definition of relative in section 2, a man is recognized as the father of a child only if he has acknowledged paternity of the child and is contributing towards maintenance of the child. The Court proceeded to hold that it lacked jurisdiction to order for a DNA test in an application for maintenance brought under section 90(e), 91, 97 and 98 of the Act where a father had declined to acknowledge paternity the couple having remained unmarried. The holding in the case formed the springboard for the campaign to have the Act revised to grant the court's powers to order for DNA test on paternity. It has also formed the debate on whether the right to know ones parents is a matter that would require legislative intervention.
View project
Tweets
    2014 all rights reserved. Designed by Ruoro Simon