[2007] KEHC 2189 (KLR)
The court held that while it is not necessary to file a formal application to seek a priority hearing date, the circumstances of this case warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. The court reasoned that if the defendant's application to strike out the suit were to be heard and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 2189 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kariuki Muigua t/a Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates; Defendant: Standard Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 673 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Priority Hearing of Contempt Proceedings
- Outcome
- Application for priority hearing of contempt proceedings granted.
- Judges
- JL Osiemo
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Priority of Hearing, Interlocutory Applications
- 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
Kariuki Muigua t/a Kariuki Muigua & Co. Advocates
Plaintiff
Standard Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Priority Hearing of Contempt Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff's application for contempt proceedings should be heard on a priority basis before other pending applications.
- 2 Whether a formal application is necessary to obtain a priority hearing date.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that while it is not necessary to file a formal application to seek a priority hearing date, the circumstances of this case warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the applicant. The court reasoned that if the defendant's application to strike out the suit were to be heard and succeed before the contempt proceedings, the contempt application would be rendered moot and unheard. Therefore, to preserve the integrity of the contempt proceedings and ensure they are not defeated by procedural sequencing, the court ordered that the contempt application be heard on a priority basis ahead of the defendant's application to strike out the suit.
Court Disposition
Application for priority hearing of contempt proceedings granted.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 6th July 2006 (contempt proceedings) shall be heard in priority to other applications in this matter.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 673 of 2006
KARIUKI MUIGUA T/A KARIUKI MUIGUA & CO. ADVOCATES.............PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
STANDARD LIMITED…………….....................................................……DEFENDANT
RULING
The Plaintiff brought an application by way of Notice of Motion under Order L Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act dated and file din court on 6th July 2006 seeking orders that the Group Managing Editor Chacha Mwita and Correspondence writer of the Defendant Kodi Bartha be summoned to appear before the court to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of court. While that application was pending, he brought this application on 22nd January 2007 under Section 3A and 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act seeking orders that the earlier contempt proceedings filed on 6th July 2006 be heard on priority basis.
The application is opposed on the ground that the reason why the applicant wants his application to be heard on priority basis is because he wants to punish the Respondent in the contempt proceedings.
Ordinarily there is nothing wrong for a party wishing to that his application be heard on priority basis. But it is not necessary to file a formal application to seek an early date. All that the applicant needed to do is to ask for a mention date before the Duty Judge and seek a date on priority basis.
The Respondent also has a pending application seeking orders to strike out the Applicant’s plaint.
That being the position it is my considered opinion that the contempt proceedings ought to be heard before the Defendant’s application to strike out the suit is heard because in the event, the Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s suit is successful, it will go with the Plaintiff’s contempt proceedings unheard.
Accordingly I exercise my discretion in favour of the Applicant and order that the Notice of Motion dated 6th July 2006 be heard in priority to other applications in this matter.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 20th day of July 2007.
J.L.A. OSIEMO
JUDGE