[2017] KEHC 1242 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 1242 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents were in contempt of the orders issued by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the respondents' mitigation, including their claim of honest mistake and plea for forgiveness. However, the court emphasized the need to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 1242 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Leah Wangechi Gioche; Respondent: Best Lady Cosmetics Shop Limited; Respondent: Daniel Munyaka; Respondent: David Kirimi T/A Kinyanjui Kirimi & Co Advocates
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Miscellaneous Application 238 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Sentencing After Contempt Conviction
Outcome
Respondents fined for contempt; custodial sentence in default for 2nd and 3rd respondents.
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Orders, Sentencing, Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Orders Sentencing Business Premises Rent Tribunal

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leah Wangechi Gioche

Applicant

Best Lady Cosmetics Shop Limited

Respondent

Daniel Munyaka

Respondent

David Kirimi T/A Kinyanjui Kirimi & Co Advocates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Sentencing After Contempt Conviction

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be punished for contempt of court orders issued by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal.
  2. 2 What is the appropriate sentence for the contempt committed by the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were in contempt of the orders issued by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considered the respondents' mitigation, including their claim of honest mistake and plea for forgiveness. However, the court emphasized the need to uphold the authority of court orders. Balancing these factors, the court determined that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate. Each respondent was fined KES 100,000, with a provision for attachment and sale of the 1st respondent's property in default, and civil jail for the 2nd and 3rd respondents if they failed to pay the fine.

Court Disposition

Respondents fined for contempt; custodial sentence in default for 2nd and 3rd respondents.

Orders

  • Each respondent to pay a fine of KES 100,000 within 7 days from the date of the order.
  • In default of payment by the 1st respondent, its property may be attached and sold to recover the fine.