[2010] KEHC 2452 (KLR)
The court found that the Senior Resident Magistrate had no basis for issuing the committal order because there was no injunction order in force at the time. The trial court had already dismissed the plaintiff's case with costs, and thus, there was no order capable of being disobeyed to justify a committal for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 2452 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bishop Michael Mbuthia; Plaintiff: Pastor Joseph Kimani Gitamaka; Plaintiff: Joram Mureithi Wambugu; Defendant: Bisho Elijah Wamburi P; Defendant: Rev. Simon Kamau; Defendant: Samuel Githinji Mwiko; Defendant: Kepha Mwangi Rua
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 1 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Revision of Committal Order for Contempt
- Outcome
- Committal order set aside; defendant's application dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Committal Orders, Injunctions, Jurisdiction of Subordinate Courts
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Bishop Michael Mbuthia
Plaintiff
Pastor Joseph Kimani Gitamaka
Plaintiff
Joram Mureithi Wambugu
Plaintiff
Bisho Elijah Wamburi P
Defendant
Rev. Simon Kamau
Defendant
Samuel Githinji Mwiko
Defendant
Kepha Mwangi Rua
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Revision of Committal Order for Contempt
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Senior Resident Magistrate had jurisdiction to commit the applicants to civil jail for contempt of court.
- 2 Whether there was a valid injunction order whose disobedience could justify committal for contempt.
- 3 Whether the committal order was properly issued in the absence of an injunction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Senior Resident Magistrate had no basis for issuing the committal order because there was no injunction order in force at the time. The trial court had already dismissed the plaintiff's case with costs, and thus, there was no order capable of being disobeyed to justify a committal for contempt. The power to punish for contempt must be exercised strictly in accordance with the law, and in the absence of a valid injunction, the committal order was unlawful. The High Court therefore set aside the committal order and substituted it with an order dismissing the defendant's application with costs.
Court Disposition
Committal order set aside; defendant's application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- The committal order of 26th April 2010 is set aside.
- The defendant's application in Nakuru CMCC No. 176 of 2001 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil Case 1 of 2010
BISHOP MICHAEL MBUTHIA………………1ST PLAINTIFF
PASTOR JOSEPH KIMANI GITAMAKA…..2ND PLAINTIFF
JORAM MUREITHI WAMBUGU…………...3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
BISHO ELIJAH WAMBURI P …………....1ST DEFENDANT
REV. SIMON KAMAU…………………..….2ND DEFENDANT
SAMUEL GITHINJI MWIKO……………..3RD DEFENDANT
KEPHA MWANGI RUA………………..…..4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
On
29th April 2010I revised the Senior Resident Magistrate’s order of26th April 2010in Nakuru CMCC No. 176 of 2001 in which he had committed the applicants to civil jail for a period of six months for contempt of court and reserved the reasons for that ruling.I now give the reasons.
The committal order was pursuant to an application made under Order 39 Rule 2(2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 5 of the Judicature Act.The former provision empowers the court to commit a party to civil jail for disobedience of an injunction order.
There was no injunction order issued in that case as the trial court had dismissed the plaintiff’s case with costs.A subordinate court has jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court under the Judicature Act.The Senior Resident Magistrate had therefore no basis whatsoever for issuing the committal order.In the circumstances I set it aside and substitute it with an order dismissing the defendant’s application in that case with costs.
DATED and Delivered this 18th day of May, 2010.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE.