[2017] KEHC 8672 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 8672 (KLR)

The court found that the petitioner's advocate acted pursuant to a valid court order permitting service by advertisement after personal service proved impossible. The advertisement accurately notified the respondent of the pending application for committal for contempt and did not misrepresent the existence of any order for committal. The language of the advert, when read as a whole, made it clear that the application for committal was pending and that the respondent was being given an opportunity to respond. There was no evidence that the advocate's conduct amounted to contempt of court, nor that the advertisement was intended to harass or blackmail the respondent. The respondent's...

Citation
[2017] KEHC 8672 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: A.D.C.; Applicant: D.P.N.
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 March 2017
Case Number
Divorce Cause 178 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Divorce Cause / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
AO Muchelule
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Parental Responsibility, Maintenance Orders, Service of Process
Source Language
English
Family and Children Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Parental Responsibility Maintenance Orders Service of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A.D.C.

Respondent

D.P.N.

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Divorce Cause / Ruling on Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner's advocate was guilty of contempt of court by placing an advertisement for substituted service without proper authority.
  2. 2 Whether the advertisement misrepresented the status of court orders regarding committal to civil jail.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's application for contempt against the petitioner's advocate had merit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petitioner's advocate acted pursuant to a valid court order permitting service by advertisement after personal service proved impossible. The advertisement accurately notified the respondent of the pending application for committal for contempt and did not misrepresent the existence of any order for committal. The language of the advert, when read as a whole, made it clear that the application for committal was pending and that the respondent was being given an opportunity to respond. There was no evidence that the advocate's conduct amounted to contempt of court, nor that the advertisement was intended to harass or blackmail the respondent. The respondent's...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The respondent's application dated 7th April 2017 is dismissed with costs.