[2020] KEHC 8964 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to comply with clear court orders requiring amendment and service of the application dated 1st February 2018, and instead proceeded to fix a different application for hearing. This conduct was deemed to be a disregard of the authority and dignity of the court, amounting to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8964 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harry Gakinya t/a Harry Gakinya & Co. Advocates; Respondent: Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited (RVACL)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 384 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Application to Strike Out
- Outcome
- Application dated 1st February 2018 struck out with costs; notice of motion dated 10th April 2019 allowed in terms of prayer (a) and (b); certificate of costs adopted as judgment.
- Judges
- JK Mulwa
- Legal Topics
- Disobedience of Court Orders, Striking Out Applications, Adoption of Certificate of Costs
- 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
Harry Gakinya t/a Harry Gakinya & Co. Advocates
Applicant
Rift Valley Agricultural Contractors Limited (RVACL)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Application to Strike Out
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's application dated 1st February 2018 should be struck out for non-compliance with court orders.
- 2 Whether the certificate of costs issued on 7th March 2017 should be adopted as a judgment of the court.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs for the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to comply with clear court orders requiring amendment and service of the application dated 1st February 2018, and instead proceeded to fix a different application for hearing. This conduct was deemed to be a disregard of the authority and dignity of the court, amounting to abuse of process. The court emphasized that obedience to court orders is fundamental to the rule of law and the administration of justice. Consequently, the application dated 1st February 2018 was struck out with costs to the respondent. Regarding the notice of motion dated 10th April 2019, the court adopted the certificate of costs issued on 7th March 2017 as a judgment of the...
Court Disposition
Application dated 1st February 2018 struck out with costs; notice of motion dated 10th April 2019 allowed in terms of prayer (a) and (b); certificate of costs adopted as judgment.
Orders
- The applicant's application dated 1st February 2018 is struck out with costs to the respondent.
- The notice of motion dated 10th April 2019 is allowed in terms of prayer (a) and (b).
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT NAKURU
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 384 OF 2011
HARRY GAKINYA T/A
HARRY GAKINYA & CO. ADVOCATES...............APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
RIFT VALLEY AGRICULTURAL
CONTRACTORS LIMITED (RVACL)...............RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This application is similar to the application in Nakuru Misc. Appl. No. 383 of 2011 which is between the same parties. It is dated the 1st February 2018 and 10th April 2019.
The only difference is that on the 11th July 2019 while hearing the application dated 10th April 2019, I made certain orders in respect of the application dated 1st February 2018 that
a) The applicant was granted seven days to amend and serve the application with corresponding leave to the respondent to reply. The applicant was further ordered to pay court Adjournment fees.
2. The said orders were not complied with. Instead, the applicant fixed for hearing the application dated 10th April 2019. This in my opinion is taking court orders for granted and blatant impunity.
The respondent urged that this application be dismissed as being sub-judice and an abuse of court process.
3. In response to the disobedience of the court orders by the applicant, Mr. Katithi Advocate for the applicant had nothing to say, stating that he would not respond.
I have been urged to strike out the application dated 1st February 2018 with costs. The Rule of law, being the foundation of the Constitution requires that court orders, its dignity and authority be obeyed and upheld.
Orders issued by a court, be they right or wrong bind all persons or organs, until set aside.
4. Disobedience knowingly therefore renders the courts impotent, and judicial authority a mockery, and may lead to anarchy, and the whole of administration of justice brought to scorn – Constitutional Petition No. 87/2017, Kenya Human Rights Commission –vs- AG & Another (2018) e KLR.
To that end, and without hesitation, I proceed to strike out the applicant’s application dated the 1st February 2018 with costs to the Respondent.
5. Back to the Notice of Motion dated 10th October 2019.
I have rendered myself sufficiently why the application ought to be sustained inNakuru HCCC Misc. Appl. No. 383/2011. The same will be imported, adopted and applied to this application. I need not repeat it here.
6. Consequently, the Notice of motion dated 10th April 2019 is allowed in terms of prayer (a) and (b), with the result that the certificate of costs issued on the 7th March 2017 against the Respondent is adopted as a judgment of the court. It is in the sum of Kshs.209,418/=.
The sum shall attract interest at court rates from the 1st February 2018 at 14% per annum.
7. In view of the circumstances pertaining thereto, the applicants shall not be granted costs for the application (Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act).
It is so ordered
Delivered, signed and dated at Nakuru this 30th Day of January 2020.
........................
J.N. MULWA
JUDGE