[2010] KEHC 4170 (KLR)
The court held that the application for contempt could not succeed because there was no affidavit of service showing that the respondent was served with the court order and penal notice. The affidavits on record only evidenced service of the notice of motion and a hearing notice, not the order and penal notice...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 4170 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Musa Litwachi; Defendant: Nairobi City Council; Defendant: John Kailikia M’Namkiria
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 309 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- FI Koome
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Judgments, Service of Process
- 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
Musa Litwachi
Plaintiff
Nairobi City Council
Defendant
John Kailikia M’Namkiria
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent was in contempt of court by disobeying a court order.
- 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence of service of the court order and penal notice on the respondent.
- 3 Whether the application for contempt was competent given the availability of execution proceedings and the vagueness of the order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for contempt could not succeed because there was no affidavit of service showing that the respondent was served with the court order and penal notice. The affidavits on record only evidenced service of the notice of motion and a hearing notice, not the order and penal notice required for contempt proceedings. Additionally, the court noted that execution could issue under the lower court's decree by way of eviction, making the contempt application unnecessary. The court also found the order sought to be enforced was vague as the suit premises were not described. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for contempt is dismissed for lack of merit.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL AND TAX DIVISION
HC MISC NO. 309 OF 2010
MUSA LITWACHI....................................................................................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NAIROBI CITY COUNCILL & ANOTHER ..................................................................................1ST DEFENDANT
JOHN KAILIKIA M’NAMKIRIA...................................................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The Notice of Motion dated 6th May, 2010 is brought by the 2nd defendant who is a decree holder in RMCC No 501/01 at the Chief Magistrate’s court Milimani. According to the decree issued on 2nd November, 2007 the respondent was ordered as follows:-
1. THAT the plaintiff to give a vacant possession of the suit premises.
2. THAT the 2nd defendant to occupy the suit premises and continues trading as he did before this suit was instituted.
3. THAT costs to the 2nd defendant.
2. According to the applicant, the order was served upon the judgment debtor, he however disobeyed and disregarded the order by failing to give vacant possession as ordered in the above decree. The applicant sought for leave of this court to institute contempt proceedings and leave was granted on 24th April, 2010. The applicant filed a notice of Motion in which he is seeking for an order that the plaintiff/judgment debtor be cited for contempt and be committed to civil jail for six months. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant. He has also annexed the copy of the order, the penal notice and the ruling in HCC CIVIL APPEAL NO. 646 of 2008 in that ruling, the respondent applied for leave to file an appeal against RMCC No. 501 of 2001 but his application was dismissed. That not withstanding, the respondent has continued to construct on the suit premises as per the annexed copies of photographs showing the structures occupied by the respondent. This application was not opposed. The respondent although served with a notice of motion did not attend court.
3. This court has to determine whether the respondent committed contempt of court by disobeying the court order. It is trite that court orders must be obeyed with utmost obedience (see the case of Mutitika Vs Baharini Farm Ltd {1985} KLR in addition to setting out what constitutes contempt of court this case also set out the standard of proof in contempt of court proceedings).
“A person one, who knowing of an injunction, or an order of stay, willfully does something, or causes others to do something, to break the injunction or interfere with the stay, is liable to be committed for contempt of court as such a person has by his conduct obstructed justice”.
4. This is because an act in contempt of court undermines the authority of the court and erodes the rule of law which in effect is replaced by the rule of the jungle. That is why courts have always punished persons found to have willfully disobeyed the court order.
4. However, before a person can be found to be in contempt, there must be evidence of service of the order together with the penal notice. I have gone through the application I have not seen an affidavit of service by a process server stating how and when the respondent was served with the court order and penal notice. What I see on record are two affidavits attached to the applicants application sworn by Kennedy Okall Aroko sworn on 12th May, 2010 where he states that he served a notice of motion dated 6th May, 2010. The other affidavit of service by the same process server sworn on 18th November, 2009 describes service of a hearing notice dated 12th November, 2009. There is no affidavit of service describing how the respondent was served with the order and the penal notice. For that reason, this application would fail.
5. The second reason why this application can not succeed is for reasons that execution can issue pursuant to the decree by the lower court by way of eviction of the respondent from the suit premises. Thirdly in my view, the order is vague because the suit premises is not described. I think I need not say anymore, save that the application is dismissed for lacking in merit with no order as to costs.
RULING DATED THIS 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010
MARTHA KOOME
JUDGE