Judgements

Civil Appeal Civil Appeal No 54 of 2014: Mutanga Tea & Coffee Company Ltd v Shikara Limited & Another

In the Court of Appeal, Dr. Wamuti Ndegwa represented the respondent developer against the by the objector. Dr. Ndegwa successfully defended and obtained a judgement dismissing the appeal and holding amongst other things that,

The Physical Planning Act does not allow a person who is challenging a Development Permission to sidestep the elaborate dispute resolution procedures and take the grievance to the High Court (or E.L.C). The persons including owners of adjacent properties who claim that they were not served with notice of application for change of user or the application for development permission are not entitled to ignore the provisions of the Physical Pl...

Read More Download

Election Petition Number 2 of 2017 Rashid Juma Bedzimba Vs Ali Menza Mbogo & IEBC

Dr. Wamuti Ndegwa defended Hon. Ali Menza Mbogo the Member of Parliament for Kisauni Constituency in a petition seeking to nullify his win in the 2018 Parliamentary Elections.

Dr. Ndegwa argued that,

The documents printed out from electronic gadgets including mobile phones and computers must be accompanied by a valid certificate of print-out as required by section 106 B of the Evidence Act.
Further, that the person who printed must be called as the witness in person or affidavit to produce the certificate as evidence.
Finally, that the document purporting to be the certificate must satisfy the conditions set by s. 106...

Read More Download

Court Of Appeal Civil Appeal No 77 of 2017 Multiple ICD (K) Ltd & Multiple Hauliers (E.A) Ltd v Kamau James Gitutho Njendu T/A Gitutho Associates & Others

Dr. Wamuti Ndegwa represented the Appellant in the Court of Appeal.

Dr. Ndegwa successfully applied,

The principle that subject to s. 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act, a writeen contract can be validly varied by a subsequent oral contract.
The principle of law that a party is not liable to pay interest on the amount claimed unless it is shown by evidence that the successful party was deprived the use of his goods or money by some wrongful act on the part of the Defendant.

The judgment for Kshs 219,170,713 in favour of the Respondent was set aside and the Respondents ordered to refund the interest amounting to Kshs 87,000,000 and pay the cos...

High Court Civil Case No.133 of 2007 Joachim Stackelberg Yolanda Firth v Sylke Obst

Dr. Wamuti Ndegwa acted for the Defendant in a claim based on breach of contract.

Dr. Ndegwa successfully applied the principle of law that in a contract, a party who prevents the other party to the contract from completing his obligations in the contract cannot be allowed to use his own wrongdoing to prevent the innocent from enforcing the contract.

Dr. Ndegwa succeeded in obtaining an order that,

An order dismissing the Plaintiff’s suit and further, that the Plaintiff pay the Defendant the costs of the suit and costs of the counterclaim.
The Plaintiff pay the Defendant damages in form of interest at 15% per year for breachin...

Read More Download

High Court Civil Case No. 171 of 2014 Mutanga Tea & Coffee Company Ltd Vs - Shikara Limited & Municipal Council of Mombasa

The issue was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a suit seeking orders to nullify a development permission issued by the local government under the Physical Planning Act and an injunction to the developer from proceeding with construction works.

Dr. Wamuti Ndegwa represented the developer who was the Defendant.

Dr. Ndegwa successfully applied the principle that the High Court (now ELC) does not have the primary jurisdiction to adjudicate in disputes where a statute provides an alternative process for adjudicating or alternative remedy.

The suit was struck out and the costs of the case awarded to the defendan...

HCC Winding Cause No. 5 Of 2006 In The Matter of Ziani Holdings Limited and the Companies Act

In this matter in the High Court, Dr. Wamuti Ndegwa represented the Shareholder/Petitioner. The shareholder complained that the company was excluding from its affairs of the company. Further, that the Board was running the company in a manner oppressive to the interests of the petitioner shareholder.

Dr. Ndegwa succeeded in applying the provisions of the Companies Act regarding the rights of the minority. The court issued an order directing that the company pay the aggrieved shareholder a sum proportionate to the monetary value of her shares in the company.

Judgement delivered on February 26, 2009.