|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| October 1985 |
|
|
Petitioner entitled to alimony pendente lite; only compulsory salary deductions reduce husband’s income for support, ordered K100 monthly.
Family law – Divorce Act s.25 – alimony pendente lite – discretionary award; only compulsory, salary-ancillary deductions properly reduce husband’s free income; credibility of claimed commitments.
|
30 October 1985 |
|
|
14 October 1985 |
| September 1985 |
|
|
Summary judgment refused where defendant's pleadings raised triable issues and the affidavit’s paraphrase sufficed under the rule.
Civil procedure — Summary judgment (Order 14) — sufficiency of affidavit — paraphrased belief acceptable; defendant need only show triable/arguable issue to resist summary judgment; partnership dispute raising factual issues requires full trial.
|
19 September 1985 |
| August 1985 |
|
|
Applicant awarded damages after court preferred his evidence and found the respondent wholly at fault in a rear‑end collision.
Motor vehicle collision – negligence of following driver – contest of oaths and credibility assessment – admissibility/weight of post‑accident signed statement and Police report – no contributory negligence – award of proved special damages and general damages.
|
15 August 1985 |
| July 1985 |
|
|
Substituted service by newspaper advertisement permitted where an absconding legal practitioner cannot be personally served.
Legal practitioners — disciplinary proceedings — substituted service by advertisement — absconding practitioner — service outside jurisdiction — section 21 Legal Education and Legal Practitioners Act.
|
31 July 1985 |
| June 1985 |
|
|
Petition granted where the respondent's cruelty and adultery with the co-respondent were proven; costs awarded.
Family law — Divorce — Cruelty: physical assaults and prolonged neglect causing injury and mental maltreatment — Adultery: inference from cohabitation, shared bedroom and purported registration of marriage — No condonation or collusion — Decree nisi granted.
|
18 June 1985 |
| April 1985 |
|
|
Applicant failed to show special circumstances or affidavit evidence to justify a stay of proceedings pending appeal.
Civil procedure – Stay of proceedings pending appeal – Appeal not an automatic stay – Stay is discretionary – Applicant must show special circumstances supported by affidavit (risk of non-repayment, company of straw) – Absence of affidavit disentitles applicant to stay.
|
3 April 1985 |