[2008] KEHC 382 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant was in contempt for failing to comply with explicit court orders regarding the return of goods and payment of specified sums. The court held that the applicant's justification for non-compliance was insufficient, as they neither disclosed the true position to the court nor sought...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 382 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao; Plaintiff: Kolluri Venkata Subbaraya Kamasastry; Plaintiff: EABS Bank Limited; Defendant: MRC Nairobi EPZ Limited; Defendant: Maersk Kenya Limited; Defendant: Punchihewa Prasada Robert; Defendant: Punchihewa Mercy Susila
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 19 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Contempt of Court
- Outcome
- Applicant denied audience until contempt is purged.
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Audience of Court, Compliance With 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
Ponangipalli Venkata Ramana Rao
Plaintiff
Kolluri Venkata Subbaraya Kamasastry
Plaintiff
EABS Bank Limited
Plaintiff
MRC Nairobi EPZ Limited
Defendant
Maersk Kenya Limited
Defendant
Punchihewa Prasada Robert
Defendant
Punchihewa Mercy Susila
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Contempt of Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a party in contempt of court should be granted audience before purging the contempt.
- 2 Whether the applicant failed to comply with court orders regarding return of goods and payment of specified sums.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant was in contempt for failing to comply with explicit court orders regarding the return of goods and payment of specified sums. The court held that the applicant's justification for non-compliance was insufficient, as they neither disclosed the true position to the court nor sought clarification or interpretation of the orders. Upholding the principle that the dignity of the court must be maintained, the court ruled that a party in contempt should not be granted audience until the contempt is purged by complying with the relevant court orders. Accordingly, the applicant was denied audience until compliance was demonstrated.
Court Disposition
Applicant denied audience until contempt is purged.
Orders
- Applicant is denied audience before the court until compliance with the court orders issued on 3rd December 2007.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS)
Civil Case 19 of 2007
PONANGIPALLI VENKATA RAMANA RAO.............................1ST PLAINTIFF
KOLLURI VENKATA SUBBARAYA KAMASASTRY……….2ND PLAINTIFF
(Joint Receivers and Managers of MRC Nairobi (EPZ Ltd.)
EABS BANK LIMITED…………………………………………..3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MRC NAIROBI EPX LIMITED………………………..….….1ST DEFENDANT
MAERSK KENYA LIMITED…………..…………..…………2ND DEFENDANT
PUNCHIHEWA PRASADA ROBERT……….…..…………3RD DEFENDANT
PUNCHIHEWA MERCY SUSILA…………….………………4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
Chamber Summons dated 14. 07. 08 under certificate of urgency was filed by 2nd Defendant for orders set therein.
A preliminary Objection has been raised on the ground that the applicant has no audience of court because he is in contempt of court.
The Counsel (Mr. Oyatta) submitted that by the time the applicant came to court, they were in contempt of Court by not complying with court orders served upon them.
Hon. J. Azangalala ordered return of goods. That order was not honoured. Attachment order was made, application asking release of all goods. The amount which should have been paid was ordered by court, Lady J Lesiit.
It is submitted that a person who has disobeyed court order should not be given any audience by court until he purges the contempt. The dignity of court must be upheld. Applicant should not be heard until he complies with orders by paying the money as ordered.
On the other hand it is said the orders were made when the goods were already out of the country in high seas. The order could not be complied with. I have perused the order issued by Lady J. Lesiit on 4th October, 2007 order number 2 was “in default of compliance” the property to be sold to compensate the said applicant in the sum of Kshs.102,910,731. 25 and USD 3,034,903.
The order was not obeyed. Instead, the Applicants are trying to justify why the order was not complied with.
It is very clear that orders were issued to satisfy the Plaintiffs claim as ordered by law. It should have been complied with. Failure renders the Applicants to be in contempt of court.
In the circumstances, this court will not encourage the parties to disobey the court orders. They should have disclosed the true position or return to court to seek interpretation of the orders if it was necessary.
This court will not therefore give audience to the Applicant until the contempt is purged by complying with court orders issued on 03. 12. 2007.
It is so ordered.
DATED this 19th day of November 2008.
JOYCE N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE