[2004] KEHC 2653 (KLR)

[2004] KEHC 2653 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant followed the correct legal procedure for instituting contempt proceedings by seeking and obtaining leave ex parte, as required under section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England. The applicant also complied with the requirement to file the substantive motion within 14 days of obtaining leave. The respondent's argument that the procedure was only applicable to judicial review was rejected, as the law clearly imports the English practice for contempt proceedings. The court found no procedural defect in the applicant's approach and concluded that the preliminary objection was without merit. The court was bound...

Citation
[2004] KEHC 2653 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mohammed Yeslam Awadh; Respondent: Peter Wilbur Marumbu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
29 April 2004
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 53 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicant
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Preliminary Objection, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Preliminary Objection Procedural Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Yeslam Awadh

Applicant

Peter Wilbur Marumbu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant adopted the correct procedure in commencing contempt proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether leave was required to institute contempt proceedings under section 5 of the Judicature Act.
  3. 3 Whether the application should have been brought by motion or chamber summons.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant followed the correct legal procedure for instituting contempt proceedings by seeking and obtaining leave ex parte, as required under section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Order 52 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England. The applicant also complied with the requirement to file the substantive motion within 14 days of obtaining leave. The respondent's argument that the procedure was only applicable to judicial review was rejected, as the law clearly imports the English practice for contempt proceedings. The court found no procedural defect in the applicant's approach and concluded that the preliminary objection was without merit. The court was bound...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the applicant

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the applicant.