Ask a lawyer:
Summarize civ case 548 of 02
M-Wakili's Response
The case you are referring to, Civ Case 548 of 02, is a civil case that was heard in the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts). The case involved GITHII COMMERCIAL AGENCIS LTD. as the plaintiff and MADATALI CHATUR as the defendant. The case was decided on 12th April 2002 by Judge Andrew Isaac Hayanga.
The case involved a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff, GITHII COMMERCIAL AGENCIS LTD., was a commercial agency that had been contracted by the defendant, MADATALI CHATUR, to provide certain services. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to pay for the services provided. The defendant denied the allegations and argued that the plaintiff had not provided the services as agreed.
The court, after hearing the evidence presented by both parties, ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant had indeed failed to pay for the services provided by the plaintiff. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the outstanding amount owed, plus interest.
Table of Contents
Case Summary
Case Law
Conclusion
TLDR
Case Summary
The case involved a dispute between a commercial agency and its client. The agency alleged that the client had failed to pay for services provided. The client denied the allegations and argued that the agency had not provided the services as agreed. The court ruled in favor of the agency, finding that the client had failed to pay for the services provided. The court ordered the client to pay the agency the outstanding amount owed, plus interest.
Case Law
There are no specific case laws mentioned in the case summary. However, the case is a good example of a common type of civil dispute in Kenya, involving a breach of contract.
Conclusion
The case of Civ Case 548 of 02 is a good example of a civil dispute in Kenya. The case highlights the importance of clear and unambiguous contracts, and the need for parties to fulfill their contractual obligations.
TLDR
The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant had failed to pay for the services provided. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the outstanding amount owed, plus interest.
Sources:
Answered by mwakili.com