[2011] KEHC 2386 (KLR)
The court found that the 2nd Defendant had not demonstrated that he had been sufficiently punished for contempt nor had he purged the contempt. The court held that the expression of remorse was neither unconditional nor unequivocal, and that the Defendant's attempt to deny deliberate disobedience was inconsistent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 2386 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Mbuvi Kathitu; Plaintiff: Davi Oloo Miruka; Plaintiff: Joseph K. Nzwili; Plaintiff: Onesmus Mwendwa Wambua; Plaintiff: Margaret Gachanja; Plaintiff: Paul Kathyaka; Plaintiff: Moses Mutinda; Plaintiff: Ezekiel Mundia Njenga; Plaintiff: Tabitha Wambui; Plaintiff: Jane Muthoni; Plaintiff: Japheth Nyamongo; Plaintiff: Mwaura Ngombe; Plaintiff: Samuel Kuria Muigai; Plaintiff: John Mutunga; Plaintiff: Juliana Mutuku; Defendant: City Council of Nairobi; Defendant: Stephen Maingi Mureithi; Defendant: Riitho Mureithi; Defendant: Nyagathugu Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 155 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Ruling / Application for Review of Contempt Imprisonment
- Outcome
- Application for early release from contempt imprisonment refused with costs.
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Injunction Orders, Enforcement of Court Orders
- 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
David Mbuvi Kathitu
Plaintiff
Davi Oloo Miruka
Plaintiff
Joseph K. Nzwili
Plaintiff
Onesmus Mwendwa Wambua
Plaintiff
Margaret Gachanja
Plaintiff
Paul Kathyaka
Plaintiff
Moses Mutinda
Plaintiff
Ezekiel Mundia Njenga
Plaintiff
Tabitha Wambui
Plaintiff
Jane Muthoni
Plaintiff
Japheth Nyamongo
Plaintiff
Mwaura Ngombe
Plaintiff
Samuel Kuria Muigai
Plaintiff
John Mutunga
Plaintiff
Juliana Mutuku
Plaintiff
City Council of Nairobi
Defendant
Stephen Maingi Mureithi
Defendant
Riitho Mureithi
Defendant
Nyagathugu Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Ruling / Application for Review of Contempt Imprisonment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant has demonstrated sufficient grounds for early release from imprisonment for contempt of court.
- 2 Whether the 2nd Defendant has purged the contempt or shown unconditional remorse.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 2nd Defendant had not demonstrated that he had been sufficiently punished for contempt nor had he purged the contempt. The court held that the expression of remorse was neither unconditional nor unequivocal, and that the Defendant's attempt to deny deliberate disobedience was inconsistent with the court's prior finding and the absence of an appeal. The court further held that health concerns could be managed by prison authorities and did not justify early release. Consequently, the application for early release from imprisonment for contempt was refused with costs to the plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
Application for early release from contempt imprisonment refused with costs.
Orders
- The application for early release from imprisonment for contempt is refused.
- The applicant shall pay the costs of this application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
34 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
ELC NO. 155 OF 2009
DAVID MBUVI KATHITU...................................................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
DAVI OLOO MIRUKA.......................................................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
JOSEPH K. NZWILI.........................................................................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
ONESMUS MWENDWA WAMBUA................................................................................4TH PLAINTIFF
MARGARET GACHANJA..................................................................................................5TH PLAINTIFF
PAUL KATHYAKA.............................................................................................................6TH PLAINTIFF
MOSES MUTINDA............................................................................................................7TH PLAINTIFF
EZEKIEL MUNDIA NJENGA.............................................................................................8TH PLAINTIFF
TABITHA WAMBUI...........................................................................................................9TH PLAINTIFF
JANE MUTHONI..............................................................................................................10TH PLAINTIFF
JAPHETH NYAMONGO.................................................................................................11TH PLAINTIFF
MWAURA NGOMBE......................................................................................................12TH PLAINTIFF
SAMUEL KURIA MUIGAI................................................................................................13TH PLAINTIFF
JOHN MUTUNGA...........................................................................................................14TH PLAINTIFF
JULIANA MUTUKU........................................................................................................15TH PLAINTIFF
(suing on their own behalf and on behalf of other persons)
V E R S U S
CITY COUNCIL OF NAIROBI.......................................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
STEPHEN MAINGI MUREITHI......................................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RIITHO MUREITHI........................................................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
NYAGATHUGU LIMITED.............................................................................................4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The 2nd Defendant was jailed for 21 days for contempt of court order. The term begun to run on 24th March 2011. When I asked Mr. Kiai how much time is left he indicated it was about 7 days. That was yesterday. The Defendant states that he is remorseful but that he did not deliberately disobey the court order in respect of which he was found to be in contempt. Further that he is hypertensive and diabetic and that further incerceration will compromise his health.
I do not want to say that if the health status of the Defendant is brought to the attention of prison authorities that can be dealt with, including access to specialized services.
In the face of a finding that the Defendant deliberately disobeyed the injunction order, and there being no appeal, it is contemptuous for him to be saying what he did not deliberately disobey. He cannot question the decision that was reached against him by the court and at the same time say he is remorseful. Any expression of remorse has to be unconditional and unequivocal.
There has been no demonstration that the Defendant has been sufficiently punished, and neither has he purged the contempt.
I refuse the application with costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBITHIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2011
A.O. MUCHELULE
J U D G E