[2023] KEHC 4138 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st Respondent, Thomas Momanyi Guto, had disobeyed court orders and was therefore guilty of contempt. The court emphasized the gravity of contempt, noting that disobedience of court orders undermines the rule of law and the administration of justice. However, considering the familial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 4138 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Nick Aboko Omari; Respondent: Thomas Momanyi Guto; Respondent: George Macrids Guto; Respondent: Alice Mokeira; Respondent: Mary Nyasuguta; Objector: Moses Nyaboga Guto
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyamira
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Probate & Administration E007 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Probate and Administration / Sentencing for Contempt of Court
- Outcome
- The 1st Respondent was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to one month probation with a requirement to execute security for good future conduct.
- Judges
- WA Okwany
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Probate Proceedings
- 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
Nick Aboko Omari
Applicant
Thomas Momanyi Guto
Respondent
George Macrids Guto
Respondent
Alice Mokeira
Respondent
Mary Nyasuguta
Respondent
Moses Nyaboga Guto
Objector
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration / Sentencing for Contempt of Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Respondent, Thomas Momanyi Guto, is guilty of contempt of court for disobeying court orders.
- 2 What is the appropriate punishment for contempt in the circumstances of this succession cause.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st Respondent, Thomas Momanyi Guto, had disobeyed court orders and was therefore guilty of contempt. The court emphasized the gravity of contempt, noting that disobedience of court orders undermines the rule of law and the administration of justice. However, considering the familial relationship among the parties, the mitigation tendered, and the contemnor's undertaking not to repeat the conduct, the court determined that a non-custodial sentence would suffice. The contemnor was sentenced to one month probation with a requirement to execute security for good future conduct, balancing the need to uphold the dignity and authority of the court with the specific...
Court Disposition
The 1st Respondent was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to one month probation with a requirement to execute security for good future conduct.
Orders
- The 1st Respondent shall serve one month probation.
- The 1st Respondent shall execute a security for good future conduct/behaviour.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
In re Estate of Jackson Guto Nyaboga (Deceased) (Probate & Administration E007 of 2021) [2023] KEHC 4138 (KLR) (11 May 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 4138 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nyamira
Probate & Administration E007 of 2021
WA Okwany, J
May 11, 2023
Between
Nick Aboko Omari
Applicant
and
Thomas Momanyi Guto
1st Petitioner
George Macrids Guto
2nd Petitioner
Alice Mokeira
3rd Petitioner
Mary Nyasuguta
4th Petitioner
and
Moses Nyaboga Guto
Objector
Ruling
1. In a ruling delivered on April 27, 2023, this court found that the 1st Respondent herein, Thomas Momanyi Guto, had disobeyed this court’s orders and was therefore guilty of contempt of court.
2. I have carefully considered the mitigation tendered by the 1st Respondent’s Advocate, Mr Nyambati, and the fact that the protagonists in this succession cause are siblings and the beneficiaries of the estate of their later father, Jackson Guto Mbogo (deceased).
3. Disobedience of court orders is a grave matter as it shakes the very foundation of the Rule of Law and impairs the proper administration of justice. Contempt is conduct that defies the dignity of a court. This court reiterates the sentiments expressed by Romer LJ in Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952]P 288 that: -“It is plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void” (Emphasis added)Further, Lord Donaldson MR said in Johnson v Walton [1990] 1 FLR350 at 352 stated:-“It cannot be too clearly stated that, when an injunctive order is made or when an undertaking is given, it operates until it is revoked on appeal or by the court itself, and it has to be obeyed whether or not it should have been granted in the first place.” (Emphasis added).
4. This court reiterates that parties must comply with court orders irrespective of what they think of the said orders.
5. Having found that the 1st Respondent is guilty of contempt, I find that the contemnor should be punished for contempt so as to uphold the dignity and authority of the court so as to ensure compliance with court’s direction, observance and respect of due process of law, preserve an effective and impartial system of justice, and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice by court.
6. After weighing all the circumstances of this case and the fact that the 1st Respondent has undertaken not to repeat such conduct, I find that a non-custodial sentence for contempt will suffice.
7. Consequently, I sentence him to serve one (1) month Probation with a rider that he shall execute a security for good future conduct/behaviour.
8. It is so ordered.
RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY 2023. W. A. OKWANYJUDGE