[2007] KEHC 957 (KLR)
The court found that the interim orders of stay of execution granted on 18th July 2005 lapsed when the parties, by consent, agreed to stand over the application generally on 29th July 2005. The applicant made no effort to prosecute the application thereafter, and the execution process had already been concluded a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 957 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Peris Wanjiku Njuguna (Suing as the legal Representative of the late Mathew Njuguna Nganda – Deceased); Respondent: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd; Respondent: Ernest Kamau Murimi; Respondent: John Muthee Ngunjiri t/a Tango Auctioneers; Respondent: Zachary Muritu t/a Muritu & Associates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 399 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Stay of Execution, Sale of Charged Property, Execution of Decree
- 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
Peris Wanjiku Njuguna (Suing as the legal Representative of the late Mathew Njuguna Nganda – Deceased)
Applicant
Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
Respondent
Ernest Kamau Murimi
Respondent
John Muthee Ngunjiri t/a Tango Auctioneers
Respondent
Zachary Muritu t/a Muritu & Associates
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents were in breach of court orders issued on 18th July 2005.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders of committal for contempt and attachment of respondents' property.
- 3 Whether the interim orders of stay of execution were still in force at the time of the alleged contempt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the interim orders of stay of execution granted on 18th July 2005 lapsed when the parties, by consent, agreed to stand over the application generally on 29th July 2005. The applicant made no effort to prosecute the application thereafter, and the execution process had already been concluded a year earlier. As such, there were no subsisting court orders capable of being breached by the respondents at the time the application for contempt was filed. The court held that the application was made with ulterior motives, lacked merit, and was an abuse of the court process. The only remedy available to the applicant after dismissal of the original suit was to appeal, not to...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
Civil Suit 399 of 2000
PERIS WANJIKU NJUGUNA (Suing as the legal Representative of
the lateMATHEW NJUGUNA NGANDA – Deceased......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD….................................................…1ST RESPONDENT
ERNEST KAMAU MURIMI…………..................................................…...2ND RESPONDENT
JOHN MUTHEE NGUNJIRI t/a TANGO AUCTIONEERS……………...3RD RESPONDENT
ZACHARY MURITU t/a MURITU & ASSOCIATES………...............……4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
On the 17th May 2006 the applicant Peris Wanjiku Njuguna filed an application under Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Order XXXIX Rule 2 A(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders of this court:
“That this honourable court be pleased to make a finding to the effect that the respondents have been in breach of the court orders issued by this court, and upon making such a finding, the respondents should be committed to civil jail for a term not exceeding six months for they be sequestrated (sic) or their properties be attached and sold by the (sic) public auction and the court be pleased to make (sic) such other punishment on the respondents as it may deem fit.”
The applicant’s complaint arose from interim orders of stay of execution issued by this court on the 18th July, 2005. The applicant had sought to stay execution of the decree of this court. This application was served upon the respondents who however did not make an appearance in court during the hearing of the application.
It would be impossible to give reasons for the determination of this application without giving a brief background. The applicant’s husband, Mathew Njuguna Nganda sued the 1st defendant, the Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd and the registered trustees of the Catholic Diocese of Nakuru seeking several orders which included, inter-alia, and order of this court declaring the sale of L.R. No. 6221/1 Grant I.R. 7248 by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant to be unlawful and fraudulent. The plaintiff sought the said sale to be set aside. After hearing the case, this court dismissed the plaintiff’s suit and found that the said sale had been conducted lawfully after the 1st defendant had legally exercised his right of sale as a chargee.
After the dismissal of the suit, the applicant herein took over the conduct of the suit upon the death of her husband, Mathew Njuguna Nganda. The 2nd defendant after the conclusion of the case, took over possession of the suit land. It further sought to execute for its costs. It was during this process of execution that the applicant made the application to stay execution of its costs by the 2nd defendant. This court did issue ex-parte orders restraining the 2nd defendants or its agents from further executing against the applicant pending the hearing and determination of the application. The applicant did not however prosecute the said application for stay of execution. In fact, on the 29th of July, 2005 the parties to the said application agreed by consent to stand over generally the said application.
To-date, the applicant has not made any effort to prosecute the said application. The interim orders which were granted on the 18th July, 2005 lapsed when the parties agreed by consent to stand over the application generally.
It is therefore surprising that one year later, the applicant has woken up from her deep slumber and is seeking to commit the 2nd defendant and its agents for an execution process that was concluded a year earlier. It is the view of this court that the application herein is made with ulterior purposes which are not germane to the issues in dispute. The applicant is aware that when this court dismissed her husband’s case on 10th November, 2004, any claim that her family had over the suit land ceased. The only avenue open for the applicant to challenge the said decision was to appeal to the Court of Appeal. It is apparent that the applicant, by filing the current application, was seeking to forestal the inevitable i.e. the eviction of her family from the suit land.
It is evident from the aforegoing that the application herein is for dismissal. It lacks merit. It is consequently dismissed with costs to the respondents as it lacks merit.
DATED at NAKURU this 18th October 2007
L. KIMARU
JUDGE