{"issue_text":"Whether the appeal is academic or moot due to the expiry of the certificate of registration of the design.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Expiry of certificate on 31 July 2018; hearing of appeal occurred after expiry."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in traversing an issue that was res judicata (determined by Muremba J).","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Muremba J dismissed an exception and opined on the merits regarding Trust capacity."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the appellants can raise on appeal an issue (who applied for registration) they did not address in the court a quo.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The court a quo noted the appellant did not rebut the respondent's submission that the Trust applied, not the Trustees."}
{"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in awarding costs on a higher scale without reasons.","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"The High Court awarded costs on a legal practitioner and client scale without providing reasons."}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The appellants, a Trust and its related company, sued the respondent for infringing industrial designs registered in the name of the Trust. The High Court dismissed the claim, holding the registration was a nullity because a Trust is not a legal person. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases