[2017] KEHC 6498 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 6498 (KLR)

The court found that although the respondent had defaulted in payment of the decretal sum as ordered on 16th February, 2005, his conduct did not amount to contempt of court warranting a finding of contempt. The applicants had already obtained judgment, and the appropriate remedy was execution of the judgment under...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 6498 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Linda Guarino; Applicant: Luigi Guarino; Respondent: Njenga Mwangi t/a Njenga Mwangi & Co. Advocates
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 1188 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
Application allowed; respondent committed to civil jail; costs to applicants.
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Judgments, Advocate Client Funds, Professional Misconduct
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Enforcement of Judgments Advocate Client Funds Professional Misconduct

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Linda Guarino

Applicant

Luigi Guarino

Applicant

Njenga Mwangi t/a Njenga Mwangi & Co. Advocates

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court order issued on 16th February, 2005.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be committed to civil jail for failure to comply with the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the respondent had defaulted in payment of the decretal sum as ordered on 16th February, 2005, his conduct did not amount to contempt of court warranting a finding of contempt. The applicants had already obtained judgment, and the appropriate remedy was execution of the judgment under section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act. The respondent had been given an opportunity to explain his non-compliance but failed to provide satisfactory reasons and did not participate in the contempt proceedings. Consequently, the court granted the prayer for committal to civil jail as sought in the application, and ordered that costs be borne by the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; respondent committed to civil jail; costs to applicants.

Orders

  • Prayer 2 of the application dated 24/9/2015 is granted: the respondent is committed to civil jail for contempt of court.
  • Costs of the application shall be borne by the respondent.