[2009] KEHC 3499 (KLR)
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for commencing contempt proceedings. Specifically, the applicant did not obtain leave by chamber summons before seeking committal, improperly combined prayers for leave and committal in a single...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 3499 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Kinyua; Respondent: O.C.S. Tigania Police Station; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 154 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Commence Contempt Proceedings
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- SP Ouko
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Judgments, Government Proceedings, Adjudication of Land
- 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
Daniel Kinyua
Applicant
O.C.S. Tigania Police Station
Respondent
Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Commence Contempt Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant complied with the mandatory procedure for commencing contempt of court proceedings against the respondents.
- 2 Whether contempt proceedings can be brought against a government office rather than an individual officer.
- 3 Whether the requirements of the Government Proceedings Act regarding enforcement of orders against the government were satisfied.
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirements for commencing contempt proceedings. Specifically, the applicant did not obtain leave by chamber summons before seeking committal, improperly combined prayers for leave and committal in a single application, and failed to personally serve the alleged contemnor as required. Additionally, the applicant did not comply with the Government Proceedings Act, which requires service of a certificate of order on the Attorney General before enforcement or contempt proceedings against the government or its officers. The court found these procedural lapses fatal to the application, rendering...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MERU
Misc. 154 of 2006
DANIEL KINYUA ……………………………………...........….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
O.C.S. TIGANIA POLICE STATION ……………..….. 1ST DEFENDANT
HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL ………………………. 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
The applicant herein had sued the O.C.S. Tigania Police Station and the Attorney General in the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Meru seeking a declaration that parcels of land Nos. 2517 and 2823 within Akithi III Adjudication section belongs to the applicant and a further order to the O.C.S. Tigania police station to remove the fence from the said parcels of land.
Judgment in terms of the above prayers were granted in favour of the applicant. The applicant has now moved this court by way of a notice of motion seeking leave to commence contempt proceedings against the respondents and also the committal of the 1st respondent (the O.C.S) to imprisonment for a period of six months for failing to comply with the above orders.
The applicant has averred that the 1st respondent has refused to vacate the parcels of land in question and also to remove the fence. That, infact, the O.C.S. threatened to shoot the applicant when, in the company of the court bailiff, he went to serve the order on the O.C.S.
Responding from the bar, counsel for the respondent submitted that the application is defective as it seeks to commit an office – O.C.S. Tigania Police station and not an individual. That it has not been demonstrated that there was personal service of the judgment. It was further argued that section 16(2) of the Government Proceedings Act has not been complied with and that the applicant’s recourse was in judicial review application.
I have considered these arguments. The application is expressed to be brought under section 5 of the Judicature Act and sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. Section 5 of the Judicature Act donates the power to punish for contempt of court to the Court of Appeal and the High Court. That power is also exercised to uphold the authority and dignity of subordinate courts. I suppose it is pursuant to this provision that this application has been filed in this court.
The provision further states that the power to punish for contempt of court shall be exercised in the manner the High Court of Justice of England exercises its power to punish for contempt. Specifically, Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides an elaborate procedure of commencing and prosecuting contempt of court proceedings.
Of relevance to the instant application is that leave to apply for contempt proceedings must be obtained. The applicant must give notice of the application for leave not later than the preceding day to the crown office (read office of the Attorney General). Once leave is granted, the applicant must apply by way of a motion for the committal of the alleged contemnor.
Unless within 14 days after leave is granted, the motion is entered for hearing, the leave shall lapse.
The notice of motion accompanied by a copy of the statement and affidavit in support of the application for leave must be served personally on the alleged contemnor. It should be apparent from the foregoing that the applicant has not complied with the procedure for commencing contempt proceedings.
Leave must be obtained by way of chamber summons. Once leave is obtained, the main application must be by a motion. See FAM V. HSS CivilAppeal No. 129 of 2007.
It is irregular and indeed incompetent to lump together in one application a prayer for leave and that for committal. Apart from the procedural flaws in this application, I am of the view that the application was made prematurely.
Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act provides that any order against the Government or a Government Department or against an officer of the Government will only be enforced after the court, on application by the person in whose favour the order has been made, has issued to the latter a certificate containing the particulars of the order.
The person in whose favour the order is made must serve the order upon the Attorney General. It is only after the Attorney General has been served with the certificate containing the order and he fails to comply that contempt proceedings can be commenced.
For these reasons, this application fails and is dismissed with costs.
Dated and delivered at Meru this 11th day of June 2009.
W. OUKO
JUDGE