[2023] KEHC 2818 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 2818 (KLR)

The High Court determined that there was no stay of proceedings issued by the Supreme Court, nor was there any pending application for such a stay. The Supreme Court, having remitted the matter to the High Court for priority hearing, did not see fit to halt the proceedings despite being aware of the contempt...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 2818 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Bia Tosha Distributors Limited; Respondent: Kenya Breweries Limited; Respondent: UDV (Kenya) Limited; Respondent: East African Breweries Limited; Respondent: Diageo PLC
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 249 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Directions After Remittal From Supreme Court
Outcome
Directions issued for the filing and service of submissions and responses; no stay of proceedings granted; applications to proceed to mention for compliance.
Judges
HI Ong'udi
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Remittal Procedure, Directions on Applications
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Remittal Procedure Directions on Applications

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 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bia Tosha Distributors Limited

Applicant

Kenya Breweries Limited

Respondent

UDV (Kenya) Limited

Respondent

East African Breweries Limited

Respondent

Diageo PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Directions After Remittal From Supreme Court

  1. 1 Whether the High Court proceedings should be stayed pending determination of a contempt application before the Supreme Court.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents' Notices of Motion should be expunged from the record for alleged contempt.
  3. 3 What directions should govern the disposal of pending applications after remittal from the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court determined that there was no stay of proceedings issued by the Supreme Court, nor was there any pending application for such a stay. The Supreme Court, having remitted the matter to the High Court for priority hearing, did not see fit to halt the proceedings despite being aware of the contempt application filed by the applicant. Therefore, the High Court would proceed to give directions for the disposal of the pending applications, including timelines for filing submissions and responses, and would not expunge the respondents' Notices of Motion or stay the proceedings based solely on the applicant's contempt application before the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Directions issued for the filing and service of submissions and responses; no stay of proceedings granted; applications to proceed to mention for compliance.

Orders

  • All applicants in the three applications to file and serve written submissions within 10 days.
  • Respondents, including the Interested Party, to file and serve responses within 10 days upon service of applicants' submissions.