[2013] KEHC 3176 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 3176 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the respondent was served with the relevant court orders. Furthermore, the order of 15/9/2011 did not restrain the respondent or any party other than the statutory manager. The applicant did not demonstrate that the order was addressed to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 3176 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Gichovi Njiru; Respondent: Lawrence Rutere t/a Giant Auctioneers; Interested Party: Cyrpiano Njeru Kamau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 194 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Institute Contempt Proceedings
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Service of Court Orders, Enforcement of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Service of Court Orders Enforcement of Court Orders

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gichovi Njiru

Applicant

Lawrence Rutere t/a Giant Auctioneers

Respondent

Cyrpiano Njeru Kamau

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Institute Contempt Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was served with the relevant court orders.
  2. 2 Whether the court orders restrained the respondent from advertising the property for sale.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to institute contempt proceedings against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the respondent was served with the relevant court orders. Furthermore, the order of 15/9/2011 did not restrain the respondent or any party other than the statutory manager. The applicant did not demonstrate that the order was addressed to the respondent, that the respondent was served, or that the respondent disobeyed the order. As these essential elements were not satisfied, the court held that the applicant was not entitled to leave to institute contempt proceedings. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 8/11/2011 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.