[2015] KEHC 6152 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to specify which court order was breached, did not provide particulars or dates of the alleged breach, and did not attach or extract the relevant orders. Without clear evidence of a specific order and its breach, the court could not find merit in the application for...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEHC 6152 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nthengu Muia Mutuu; Defendant: Ndeto Kyalo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 73 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Chamber Summons / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- CM Kariuki
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders, Enforcement 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
Nthengu Muia Mutuu
Plaintiff
Ndeto Kyalo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Chamber Summons / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent breached any court order as alleged by the applicant.
- 2 Whether the application for committal to jail for contempt is merited.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to specify which court order was breached, did not provide particulars or dates of the alleged breach, and did not attach or extract the relevant orders. Without clear evidence of a specific order and its breach, the court could not find merit in the application for contempt. The application was therefore dismissed for lack of substantiation and failure to meet the legal threshold for contempt proceedings.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- Application is dismissed.
- Costs in the main cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
No.78/2015
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT MACHAKOS
ELC CASE NO.73 OF 2009
NTHENGU MUIA MUTUU ……………………PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT
VERSUS
NDETO KYALO…………………………………DEFENDANT/APPLICANT
R U L I N G
On 8. 6.09 Lenaola J. made an order that “status quo be maintained” and application was fixed for hearing on 17. 9.09. The status quo was never explained or intimated as to what it entailed. On 25. 3.2013 the Applicant filed Chamber Summons seeking to have Respondent jailed for 6 months on alleged breach of court orders dated 24. 10. 2012 the attached order did not indicate what it prohibited. It only stated that “should she breach court order she will be liable to imprisonment….” Which order she was deemed to violate or breach? Same was not extracted or attached.
In the grounds and supporting affidavit, it is alleged that the Respondent has continued to disobey all court orders. No actions are narrated with dates and particulars of breach are set out nor are the “orders” breached indicated or attached. The parties should adhere to maintaining the status quo ordered. If there is any breach of the same, the particulars of breach and date should be furnished to court.
The court finds no merit in the application canvassed by way of written submissions and makes the following orders.
Application be and is hereby dismissed.
Costs in the main cause.
Parties to comply with order 11 and fix hearing of case on priority basis.
Datedand Deliveredat Machakos,this 20thday ofFebruary, 2015.
CHARLES KARIUKI
JUDGE