[2012] KEHC 2497 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated, through the amended statement and supporting affidavit, that the 1st defendant was duly served with the relevant court orders. The court was satisfied that the threshold for granting leave to institute contempt proceedings had been met. Consequently, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2497 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Njeri Muigai; Defendant: Peter Nyoike Muigai; Defendant: Terry Wambugu; Defendant: Petmar Investments Ltd; Defendant: The Honourable Attorney General sued for and on behalf of the Registrar of Companies
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 532 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Institute Contempt Proceedings
- Outcome
- leave granted to institute contempt proceedings against the 1st defendant; costs in the cause
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Leave to Institute Proceedings, Service of Court Orders
- 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
Mary Njeri Muigai
Plaintiff
Peter Nyoike Muigai
Defendant
Terry Wambugu
Defendant
Petmar Investments Ltd
Defendant
The Honourable Attorney General sued for and on behalf of the Registrar of Companies
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Ex Parte Application for Leave to Institute Contempt Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be granted leave to institute contempt of court proceedings against the 1st defendant.
- 2 Whether the 1st defendant was properly served with the relevant court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant had demonstrated, through the amended statement and supporting affidavit, that the 1st defendant was duly served with the relevant court orders. The court was satisfied that the threshold for granting leave to institute contempt proceedings had been met. Consequently, the court granted the applicant leave to commence contempt of court proceedings against the 1st defendant. The application was ex parte, and the court limited its determination to the issue of leave, reserving further consideration for the substantive contempt proceedings.
Court Disposition
leave granted to institute contempt proceedings against the 1st defendant; costs in the cause
Orders
- Leave is granted to the plaintiff to institute contempt of court proceedings against the 1st defendant Peter Nyoike Muigai.
- Costs shall be in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
MARY NJERI MUIGAI..................................................................................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PETER NYOIKE MUIGAI.....................................................................................................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
TERRY WAMBUGU...........................................................................................................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
PETMAR INVESTMENTS LTD........................................................................................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
THE HONOURABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL sued for and on behalf of the REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES.......4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. Before me is a notice of motion dated the 6/6/12. The plaintiff/applicant has brought this application under order 52 rules of the Supreme Court of England, section 5 of the Judicature Act Cap 8, sections 1A, 3A and Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 of the laws of Kenya and any other enabling provisions of the laws of Kenya.
2. The applicant seeks leave to be granted to institute contempt of Court proceedings against the 1st defendant peter Nyoike Muigai and that the said respondent do personally attend the proceedings herein and/or do post bail to secure his personal attendance and that costs of the application be provided for.
The application is premised on grounds (a) to (h) stated on the face of the application together with an amended statement dated 10th July 2012.
3. The application is an exparte application. I have read the amended statements which details the history behind its application. It is evident that there are court orders that were served on the 1st defendant/respondent as deponed by the applicant. The 1st defendant has been served . I therefore grant prayer no. 2 of the application dated 6/6/12, leave is granted to the plaintiff to institute contempt of Court proceedings against the 1st defendant Peter Nyoike Muigai. Costs shall be in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered this 8th day of August 2012
R. OUGO
JUDGE
In the Presence of:-
…………………………………………..For the plaintiff
…………………………………………… For the defendants
…………………………………………… Court Clerk