[2005] KEHC 3211 (KLR)

[2005] KEHC 3211 (KLR)

The court held that the defendant was in contempt of a subsisting court order requiring the deposit of certain monies in court, and that the defendant had not made any attempt to comply with that order. The general principle is that a party in contempt should not be heard in proceedings they voluntarily institute...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] KEHC 3211 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ramesh Popatlal Shah & Surekha Shobhagchandra Shah (Administrators of the Estate of the late Shobhagchandra Ratilal Shah) t/a Lento Agencies; Defendant: National Industrial Credit Bank Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
8 March 2005
Case Number
Civil Case 515 of 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Defendant's Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Preliminary objection upheld. Defendant barred from being heard on its application until contempt is purged.
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interlocutory Judgment, Preliminary Objection, Court Orders Compliance
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Interlocutory Judgment Preliminary Objection Court Orders Compliance

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Popatlal Shah & Surekha Shobhagchandra Shah (Administrators of the Estate of the late Shobhagchandra Ratilal Shah) t/a Lento Agencies

Plaintiff

National Industrial Credit Bank Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Defendant's Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a party in contempt of court orders should be heard before purging the contempt.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's application to set aside interlocutory judgment and orders can be entertained while in contempt.
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary objection raised by the plaintiffs is sustainable in law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant was in contempt of a subsisting court order requiring the deposit of certain monies in court, and that the defendant had not made any attempt to comply with that order. The general principle is that a party in contempt should not be heard in proceedings they voluntarily institute until the contempt is purged, unless the application falls within recognized exceptions (such as challenging jurisdiction or seeking to purge the contempt). The defendant's application did not raise jurisdictional grounds nor seek to purge the contempt, and the failure to comply with the order impeded the course of justice. The preliminary objection was therefore upheld, and the...

Court Disposition

Preliminary objection upheld. Defendant barred from being heard on its application until contempt is purged.

Orders

  • Defendant is given 14 days from the date of the ruling to purge its contempt.
  • Costs in the cause.