COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

1. The principle of fairness: This principle requires that administrative bodies act in a fair and impartial manner, without bias or prejudice.
2. The principle of audi alteram partem: This principle, also known as the right to be heard, requires that administrative bodies give both parties an opportunity to be heard and present their case before making a decision.
3. The principle of reasonableness: This principle requires that administrative bodies make decisions that are reasonable and rational, taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances.
4. The principle of proportionality: This principle requires that the punishment or remedy imposed by an administrative body is proportionate to the gravity of the offence or wrong committed.
5. The principle of transparency: This principle requires that administrative bodies conduct their proceedings in a transparent and open manner, making their decisions and reasons for those decisions available to the public.
6. The principle of natural justice in the investigation: This principle requires that administrative bodies conduct an investigation that is fair and impartial, following the rules of evidence and allowing both parties to present their case.
7. The principle of impartiality in the decision-making: This principle requires that administrative bodies make decisions that are impartial and unbiased, free from conflicts of interest or other influences.
8. The principle of natural justice in the appeal process: This principle requires that administrative bodies provide an appeal process that is fair, impartial and unbiased.
9. The principle of natural justice in the enforcement: This principle requires that administrative bodies enforce their decisions in a fair and impartial manner, without bias or prejudice.
10. The principle of natural justice in the interpretation: This principle requires that administrative bodies interpret their laws and regulations in a fair and impartial manner, without bias or prejudice.

Winding up, also known as liquidation, is the process of dissolving a company and distributing its assets among its creditors and shareholders. There are several consequences of winding up a company, including:

1. End of the company: Once a company is wound up, it ceases to exist and can no longer conduct business or enter into new contracts.
2. Loss of employment: Winding up a company can result in loss of employment for the company’s employees.
3. Loss of assets: The company’s assets, such as property, equipment, and inventory, will be sold off to pay off the company’s debts. Any remaining assets will be distributed among the shareholders.
4. Creditor priority: In a winding up, the company’s assets will be distributed among its creditors according to the priority of their claims, as determined by law. This means that some creditors may not be fully paid, while others may receive more than they are owed.
5. Loss of investments: Shareholders will lose their investments in the company and will not be able to recoup their losses.
6. Loss of reputation: A company that is wound up may suffer damage to its reputation, which can affect the ability of its directors and officers to secure future employment or business opportunities.
7. Legal proceedings: The winding up process may also involve legal proceedings, such as lawsuits and bankruptcy proceedings.
8. Loss of control: The company’s management and shareholders will lose control of the company and its assets.
9. Effects on suppliers and customers: Winding up a company may also have negative effects on its suppliers and customers, as it may disrupt the continuity of their business operations.
10. Impact on economy: Winding up a company can have a negative impact on the economy, as it leads to loss of jobs, reduced economic activity, and a decrease in tax revenues for the government.

The legal principles applicable in this case include insurance law, contract law, and property law.

1. Insurance law: The insurance of Morris’s house by Desny Insurance Company is governed by the laws of insurance, which regulates the relationship between the insurer and the insured. Under insurance law, the insurer has a duty to compensate the insured for any loss or damage covered by the policy.
2. Contract law: The insurance contract between Morris and Desny Insurance Company is a legally binding agreement, and both parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. The contract is also binding on any subsequent owners of the property, as long as they are aware of the insurance policy.
3. Property law: The sale of Morris’s house to Tony is governed by property law, which regulates the transfer of ownership of property. Property law requires that the seller of the property inform the insurer of any change in ownership of the property.
4. Duty to disclose: Under insurance law, the insured has a duty to disclose all material facts that are relevant to the risk being insured. In this case, Morris’s failure to inform the insurer of the change in ownership of the house could be considered as a failure to disclose a material fact, which could void the insurance policy.
5. Subrogation: Under insurance law, the insurer has the right to be subrogated to the rights of the insured in the event of a loss or damage. This means that the insurer can pursue recovery from a third party that caused the loss or damage, in order to recover the amount paid out to the insured. In this case, the insurer may argue that it has the right to be subrogated to the rights of Tony and can pursue recovery from Morris for his failure to disclose the change in ownership.
6. Bailment: The insurer may argue that the house is in the possession of Tony as a bailee, and that Tony has a duty to take care of the house and inform the insurer of any change in possession. This is because the insurer has an insurable interest in the house, and the failure of Tony to inform them of the change in possession of the house may be considered a breach of the bailment contract.
7. Estoppel: Tony may argue that Morris’s failure to disclose the change in ownership to the insurer has estopped the insurer from denying coverage, as Tony relied on the insurance policy and the insurer’s silence on the change in ownership. This means that the insurer would be barred from denying coverage due to Morris’s conduct or lack of action.

In this case, Morris sold the house to Tony and failed to inform Desny Insurance Company of the change in ownership. When the house got substantially damaged by fire, Tony claimed compensation from Desny Insurance Company, but the insurer declined. Since Tony was aware of the insurance policy and the insurer was not informed of the change in ownership, the insurer may argue that the policy was not valid and therefore, it does not have the obligation to compensate Tony. However, Tony may argue that the insurer had the duty to compensate him as the subsequent owner of the property, since he was aware of the insurance policy and Morris’s failure to inform the insurer does not relieve the insurer of its obligations.

{i) County Assembly:

1. Representation: The County Assembly represents the people of the county by providing a platform for the expression of their views and concerns.
2. Legislation: The County Assembly has the power to make laws (ordinances) that govern the county.
3. Oversight: The County Assembly has the power to oversee the performance of the county executive, to hold it accountable and to ensure that it is working in the best interest of the county’s residents.
4. Budgeting: The County Assembly approves the county’s budget and ensures that public funds are used in a responsible and accountable manner.
5. Constituency services: County Assembly members serve as the representatives of their constituencies and are responsible for addressing the needs and concerns of their constituents.
6. Scrutinizing development projects: The County Assembly is responsible for scrutinizing development projects in the county and ensuring that they are in line with the county’s development plans and priorities.

(ii) County Executive:

1. Administration: The County Executive is responsible for the administration of the county, including the management of county resources, personnel, and infrastructure.
2. Implementation of policies and laws: The County Executive is responsible for implementing the policies and laws (ordinances) passed by the County Assembly.
3. Budget execution: The County Executive is responsible for executing the budget approved by the County Assembly.
4. Service delivery: The County Executive is responsible for delivering services to the residents of the county, including healthcare, education, housing, and infrastructure development.

1. Contract law: The purchase of the five sacks of pishori rice by Lubendi from Maira Traders constitutes a contract between the two parties. Under contract law, both parties are bound by the terms of the contract, including the terms of payment, delivery, and quality of the goods.
2. Sale of goods law: The sale of the five sacks of pishori rice by Maira Traders to Lubendi is governed by the Sale of Goods Act. Under this law, goods must be of merchantable quality, which means they must be fit for the purpose for which they are intended and must be of a quality that is satisfactory for the buyer.
3. Consumer protection law: As a consumer, Lubendi has the right to expect that the goods she purchases are of a reasonable quality and fit for the purpose for which they are intended. If the goods are not of merchantable quality, Lubendi has the right to return the goods and be refunded her money.
4. Acceptance of goods: The fact that Lubendi accepted the delivery of the five sacks of rice and paid the price by Mpesa, it can be argued that she accepted the goods and thus, was satisfied with the quality of the rice at that time.
5. Right to reject: The consumer protection law gives the consumer the right to reject goods that are not of merchantable quality within a reasonable time after delivery. In this case, it is not clear from the information provided whether Lubendi rejected the goods within a reasonable time after delivery.
6. Limitation of liability: Under the Sale of Goods Act, a seller of goods is not liable for any breach of the implied conditions or warranties if he can prove that the buyer knew of the defects of the goods at the time of purchase. In this case, it is not clear from the information provided whether Lubendi was aware of the crushed rice grains at the time of purchase and if Maira Traders can prove this, they may be able to limit their liability.