[2020] KEELC 2998 (KLR)
The court found that, pursuant to section 10(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act No. 26 of 2015, magistrates' courts now have unlimited jurisdiction to punish for contempt in civil proceedings, including willful disobedience of court orders. The previous position, which denied such jurisdiction, has been superseded by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 2998 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Estehr Nyagutii Maina; Defendant: Rachel Wanjiku Kamara; Defendant: James Githinji Kamara
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 56 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection upheld; suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Preliminary Objection, Contempt of Court
- 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
Estehr Nyagutii Maina
Plaintiff
Rachel Wanjiku Kamara
Defendant
James Githinji Kamara
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter in light of the Magistrates' Courts Act provisions.
- 2 Whether the preliminary objection meets the threshold for determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, pursuant to section 10(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act No. 26 of 2015, magistrates' courts now have unlimited jurisdiction to punish for contempt in civil proceedings, including willful disobedience of court orders. The previous position, which denied such jurisdiction, has been superseded by the current statutory framework. Therefore, the preliminary objection raised by the respondent was meritorious, as the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application. The suit was accordingly dismissed with costs to the applicant/respondent.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection upheld; suit dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The suit is dismissed with costs to the applicant/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
[if gte mso 9]><xml> <o:OfficeDocumentSettings> <o:AllowPNG/> </o:OfficeDocumentSettings> </xml><![endif]REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT ELDORET
MISCELLENEOUS APPLICATION NO. 56 OF 2019
ESTEHR NYAGUTII MAINA….………………………………....PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RACHEL WANJIKU KAMARA…………….…………….1ST DEFENDANT
JAMES GITHINJI KAMARA………………....…….……2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
This ruling is in respect of a notice of a preliminary objection by the respondent/applicant dated 4th January 2020 on the grounds that this court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter.
Counsel for the applicant relied on the provisions of section 10(3) and section 25 of the Magistrates court Act No 26 of 2015 and urged the court to dismiss the suit with costs to the respondents.
Counsel for the applicant/respondent submitted that section 10 (3) of the Magistrates court Act simply states that civil disobedience of court orders constitutes contempt but does not provide how the person in contempt or disobedience will be punished. Counsel therefore submitted that the power to punish contempt of court is vested in the High court thus the court has jurisdiction to do so.
Mr. Miyienda urged the court to dismiss the preliminary objection with costs.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
This is a preliminary objection by the respondent on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter pursuant to section 10(3) and section 25 of the Magistrates’ Court Act No. 26 of 2015.
The issue for determination is whether this court has jurisdiction to determine the application by the applicant and whether the same meets the threshold for preliminary objections. The respondent filed a notice for preliminary objection and filed submissions in support of the PO.
The Magistrates’ Courts Act, 2015 came into force on 2nd January 2016 which gives the magistrate’s courts unlimited jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Section 10 of the said Act specifically provide:-
“(1) Subject to the provisions of any other law, the Court shall have power to punish for contempt.
(2) A person who, in the face of the Court-
(a) assaults, threatens, intimidates, or insults a magistrate, court administrator, judicial officer, or a witness, during a sitting or attendance in Court, or in going to or returning from the Court;
(b) interrupts or obstructs the proceedings of the Court; or
(c) Without lawful excuse disobeys an order or direction of the Court in the course of the hearing of a proceeding, commits an offence
(3) In the case of civil proceedings, the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court constitutes contempt of court.”
The prevailing law before the amendment of the Act was that the Magistrates courts had no powers to punish for contempt. Section 10(3) is in respect of civil proceedings before the court and any disobedience of a decree or order of the court constitutes contempt and is punishable by the same court.
Consequently I find that the preliminary objection has merit and is therefore upheld and the suit dismissed with cost to the applicant/Respondent.
DATED and DELIVEREDatELDORETthis 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2020
M. A. ODENY
JUDGE