[2020] KEHC 491 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 491 (KLR)

The court found that the foundation of the applicant's contempt application was the respondents' alleged status as administrators of the estate. However, the succession cause had been dismissed and the file closed in 2015, and the respondents ceased to be administrators from that date. As such, they were not the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 491 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Teresa Auma Ogola; Respondent: Maurice Onguru Ogolla; Respondent: Phoebe Ogolla; Respondent: Everlyne Ogolla; Respondent: Tom Ogolla
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 2 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Succession Proceedings, Administrators Duties
Source Language
en
Family and Children Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Succession Proceedings Administrators Duties

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

Parties

Teresa Auma Ogola

Applicant

Maurice Onguru Ogolla

Respondent

Phoebe Ogolla

Respondent

Everlyne Ogolla

Respondent

Tom Ogolla

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondents could be cited for contempt of court for allegedly disobeying court orders as administrators of the estate.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were administrators at the material time when the alleged contempt occurred.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the foundation of the applicant's contempt application was the respondents' alleged status as administrators of the estate. However, the succession cause had been dismissed and the file closed in 2015, and the respondents ceased to be administrators from that date. As such, they were not the persons against whom the court's orders of 10th February 2020 were made. Consequently, there was no legal basis to cite them for contempt, as they had no obligation in law to comply with orders directed at administrators when they no longer held that office.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 13th July 2020 is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.