[2017] KEHC 5684 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5684 (KLR)

The court found that the preliminary objection lacked merit because the procedural requirements under English law are no longer strictly applicable in Kenya for contempt proceedings. The evolution of Kenyan law means that technical objections based on outdated foreign procedures do not suffice to summarily dismiss...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5684 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Angela Natasha Chemoss; Respondent: Cyrus Kiplimo Sang
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Civil Application 87 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection overruled
Judges
DN Musyoka
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Contempt of Court Procedure, Application of Foreign Law
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Preliminary Objection Contempt of Court Procedure Application of Foreign Law

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Natasha Chemoss

Applicant

Cyrus Kiplimo Sang

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the contempt application is fatally defective for non-compliance with English law procedural requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection raises valid technical grounds to strike out the contempt application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the preliminary objection lacked merit because the procedural requirements under English law are no longer strictly applicable in Kenya for contempt proceedings. The evolution of Kenyan law means that technical objections based on outdated foreign procedures do not suffice to summarily dismiss an application. Issues such as service and disobedience are to be determined at the substantive hearing of the application, not at the preliminary stage. Accordingly, the preliminary objection was overruled, and the applicant was awarded costs.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection overruled

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 22nd June 2015 is overruled.
  • The applicant is awarded costs of the objection.