[2017] KEHC 2427 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 2427 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st respondent, Mr. Torome Saitoti, Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence, was served with a valid court order requiring payment of the decretal sum to the applicants as administrators of the estate of Johnson Onduko Makori. The respondent failed to comply with the order and did not offer...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 2427 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Eunice Makori & Hellen Makone (as administrators and personal representatives of the estate of Johnson Onduko Makori); Respondent: Mr. Torome Saitoti (Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence); Respondent: Mr. Joseph K. Boinnet (Inspector General of Police)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 74 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Contempt Motion
Outcome
Motion allowed; 1st respondent cited for contempt; further orders for mitigation and sentencing.
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Judgments, Mandatory Injunctions
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Judgments Mandatory Injunctions

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eunice Makori & Hellen Makone (as administrators and personal representatives of the estate of Johnson Onduko Makori)

Applicant

Mr. Torome Saitoti (Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence)

Respondent

Mr. Joseph K. Boinnet (Inspector General of Police)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Contempt Motion

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent wilfully disobeyed court orders compelling payment of the decretal sum to the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st respondent should be cited for contempt of court and subjected to penal consequences.
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd respondent should be ordered to effect arrest of the 1st respondent for contempt.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st respondent, Mr. Torome Saitoti, Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence, was served with a valid court order requiring payment of the decretal sum to the applicants as administrators of the estate of Johnson Onduko Makori. The respondent failed to comply with the order and did not offer any explanation or response to the contempt motion. The court held that willful disobedience of a court order undermines the authority of the judiciary and must be sanctioned. Accordingly, the 1st respondent was cited for contempt and required to appear before the court for mitigation and sentencing. The court declined to issue orders against the 2nd respondent at this stage...

Court Disposition

Motion allowed; 1st respondent cited for contempt; further orders for mitigation and sentencing.

Orders

  • Mr. Torome Saitoti, Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence, is cited for willfully disobeying court orders issued on 30th May 2016 compelling payment of Kshs. 17,257,930 to the applicants.
  • Mr. Torome Saitoti is required to appear before the court on 9/11/2017 to submit in mitigation for sentencing.