[2021] KEHC 13370 (KLR)
The court found that the application for contempt was procedurally defective as it was brought under the Civil Procedure Rules rather than the Judicature Act, which governs contempt proceedings. The court emphasized that contempt is quasi-criminal, requiring strict compliance with due process and fair trial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 13370 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Applicant (Name Not Provided); Respondent: Chief of Tongoi Location; Respondent: OCPD Luanda
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Vihiga
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 97 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- Application for contempt dismissed for procedural defects.
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Succession Proceedings, Procedural Fairness
- 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
Applicant (Name Not Provided)
Applicant
Chief of Tongoi Location
Respondent
OCPD Luanda
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for contempt of court is properly before the court under the correct legal procedure.
- 2 Whether due process and fair trial principles have been adhered to in the contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for contempt was procedurally defective as it was brought under the Civil Procedure Rules rather than the Judicature Act, which governs contempt proceedings. The court emphasized that contempt is quasi-criminal, requiring strict compliance with due process and fair trial standards. Since the pleadings did not meet these requirements, the court declined to proceed with the application and directed the applicant to file proper contempt proceedings if so advised. The court further directed that priority be given to the pending review application and discouraged further interlocutory applications to avoid delay and escalation of conflict among the parties.
Court Disposition
Application for contempt dismissed for procedural defects.
Orders
- The application for contempt is dismissed.
- Applicant is at liberty to file proper contempt proceedings in accordance with the law.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT VIHIGA
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 97 OF 2001
FORMERLY KAKAMEGA NO. 816 OF 2015
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF PILA MUSA ANGANYA (DECEASED)
RULING
1. The application for determination is the Motion dated 16th March 2021, which seeks to have a number of individuals cited for contempt of court. Some sought to be cited are not parties to this suit, such as the Chief of Tongoi Location and the OCPD Luanda.
2. The application is brought under Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, yet the jurisdiction to try for contempt ex facie is as per the provisions of the Judicature Act, Cap 8, Laws of Kenya, which adopts the procedure of the High Court of England. The Motion before me is not founded on that procedure, which envisages proceedings very similar to those for judicial review.
3. Secondly, contempt proceedings are a quasi-criminal. Contempt of court is criminal conduct, and the sanctions for it are penal, imprisonment or payment of a fine. The principles that govern liability for it are akin to those prescribed for criminal matters. The standard of proof is higher than in ordinary civil cases. Due process must be followed, inclusive of scrupulous compliance with the procedure prescribed. A person cannot be subject to criminal sanctions where the process of trial is defective or violates the due process or fair trial hearing principles.
4. I am not persuaded that the pleadings before me are adequate for trial of the persons mentioned in hem for contempt of court. Let the applicant go back to the drawing board and bring proper contempt proceedings against the persons he alleges have disobeyed court orders. Let due process be followed to the letter.
5. I gave directions on 30th July 2020, on how this matter should be handled so that we can get closure. Let the pending review application be disposed of first. The parties should give priority to that. These other applications will only make matters worse, delay the process further, and inflame the already fragile relations between the parties further. I shall henceforth not entertain any other application, apart from the pending review application.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT AT KAKAMEGA THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021
W MUSYOKA
JUDGE