Franato Women's Full Body Slip Shapewear Control Dress Seamless Body Shaper

Product Information

The record also shows that Mr Wamalwa counsel for the plaintiff stated that he was ready to proceed and complained that the defendant was given a chance to amend the defence but that they had not. The court remarked that the defence were given the last adjournment and that they had not even amended the defence hence that adjournment being sought was a ploy to delay the hearing of the case and that therefore the matter would proceed at 1.20 a.m. On that very day Mr Kinyanjui appeared at 11.15 a.m. and notified the court that there was an application on record and that the registry was not able to give an earlier date. Mr Wamalwa indicated that he was not opposed to the application for amendment. The court granted adjournment with costs. With due respect to the proceedings of that day 18 th November 2002, this court is perturbed by the fact that it is clear that the appellant herein had filed an application for leave to amend the defence and the said application had been given that very date for the hearing of the application which had been served upon the respondent.

I observe that the first time the suit came up for hearing Mr Kinyanjui intimated to court that he needed to file an application for leave to amend the defence and the court grudgingly granted him a “last adjournment”and fixed a hearing date. That the court adjourned the matter to 28 th November 2002 , while penalizing the defendant to pay costs of shs 5,000/- That nonetheless, the court did not record the disposal of the application for amendment in favour of the defendant. If the magistrate had not felt able to examine the justice of the appellant’s application and whether there was a triable issue by questioning him and examining his pleadings, he should have at least offered him an adjournment, subject to being penalized for costs, so that the matter could be properly reviewed. The trial record shows that there was absolutely no delay occasioned by the defendant’s counsel in that he sought for leave to amend the defence on his first appearance for hearing on 25 th September 2002 and upon being granted an adjournment, on 17 th October 2002 he filed the said application annexing a draft amended defence, which application was, as per the record, given a hearing date for 18 th November 2002. The latter date is the same date on which the main suit was scheduled for hearing. It appears that on the said latter date, Mr Kinyanjui- from his affidavit, was engaged before the Honourable Mwera J in HCC 2176/01 as explained by Mr Mwaniki hence he instructed Mr Mwaniki to hold his brief. Mr Mwaniki did not indicate whether he had instructions to proceed with the matter.To counter that application and letter the plaintiff swore an affidavit on 13 th February 2002 denying that he or at all voluntarily wrote such a letter disowning his claim or instructing his advocate to file suit on his behalf and contending that the letter had been written by one Francis Ndichu Thaiya of the defendant company who asked the plaintiff to copy it in the latter’s handwriting promising to pay the plaintiff for his injury and that the letter was used to mislead the plaintiff hence he disowned it. The trial magistrate again fixed a hearing date for 28 th November 2002 and it is on the latter date that the matter proceeded in the absence of Mr Kinyanjui who deposed in his affidavit in support of the application for setting aside the exparte judgment that he had agreed with Mr Wamalwa to proceed at 2.20 pm and that by the trial court proceeding to hear the suit at 10.00 a.m. or 11.20 am, the court and the plaintiff were stealing a match on him and therefore his client who was denied a hearing. that However, on 18 th November 2002 counsel for plaintiff/respondent herein submitted before the trial court that the defendant had failed to amend the defence and that he was ready to proceed with the trial that day yet the application for leave to amend the defence was before the court for hearing. That Mr Kinyanjui indicated to the court that he had served the application for leave to amend the defence upon the plaintiff’s counsel and that he was ready to prosecute the said application but that the trial court took the view that on 25 th September the court had given a last adjournment and that the appellant herein had presumably not amended the defence, and the that the trial court concluded that the defendant was delaying the trial upon which she fixed the hearing for 10.20 a.m. the same day. That even the plaintiff’s counsel could not trace the file for filing of submissions and that on 6 th February 2003 judgment was delivered without submissions from either side and without notice to the defence.

Franato is a brand offering casual maternity dresses, shaping full slips for women, and seamless slips for women to customers. Our Franato review dives deep into the brand and its collection. We’ll provide the details on the quantity, price, and more to help you decide if these products are your new must-haves.In Mbogo v Shah the Court of Appeal rendered itself thus on the subject, as per Sir Clement De Lestang VP :- On 26 th March 2001 the parties advocates appeared in the registry and fixed the suit for hearing on 25 th September 2001 at 9.30 a.m. which was the first time that the suit was being set down for hearing. Come 29 th September 2001, Mr Kinyanjui counsel for the defendant is recorded as indicating to court that he was not ready to proceed as he needed time to amend the defence. He sought for limited time to make the application. Mr Wamalwa counsel for the plaintiff opposed Mr Kinyanjui application on the ground that the defendants were served with a hearing notice and that they had sufficient time to amend their defence. The court recorded as follows: “last adjournment” and set the suit for hearing on 18 th November 2002, while condemning the defendant to pay costs of shs 5,000/- and the plaintiff’s costs.