[2023] KEHC 23001 (KLR)
The court found that there was no order in the court file directed at the applicant which could lawfully be cited for disobedience. The applicant failed to annex any such order to his application. As a result, the application for contempt was unmerited because the threshold for contempt proceedings—existence of a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 23001 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rago Abdurehman (suing as chairman of Isiolo Central Farmers’ Co-operative Society); Respondent: County Co-Operative Officer, Isiolo
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 130 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Judges
- TW Cherere
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Cooperative Societies, Enforcement of 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
Rago Abdurehman (suing as chairman of Isiolo Central Farmers’ Co-operative Society)
Applicant
County Co-Operative Officer, Isiolo
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the County Co-operative Officer, Isiolo, disobeyed a lawful court order.
- 2 Whether there existed an enforceable order directed at the applicant for purposes of contempt proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no order in the court file directed at the applicant which could lawfully be cited for disobedience. The applicant failed to annex any such order to his application. As a result, the application for contempt was unmerited because the threshold for contempt proceedings—existence of a clear and enforceable order—was not met. The court therefore dismissed the application with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 15th August, 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
Republic v Chairman Cooperative Tribunal & another; Halo (Exparte Applicant); Abdurehman & another (Interested Parties); Abdurehman (suing as chairman of Isiolo Central Farmers’ Co-operative Society) (Applicant); County Co-operative Officer, Isiolo (Respondent) (Miscellaneous Civil Application 130 of 2018) [2023] KEHC 23001 (KLR) (28 September 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 23001 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Meru
Miscellaneous Civil Application 130 of 2018
TW Cherere, J
September 28, 2023
IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 53 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT -AND- IN THE MATTER OF COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT CAP 490 LAWS OF KENYA -AND- IN THE MATTER OF GAZETTE NOTICE NO. 10193 IN THE MATTER OF INQUIRY ORDER DATED 3 RD OCTOBER 2018 IN THE MATTER OF COOPERATIVE TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 228 OF 2016 (ABDU HATI HERSI V HASSAN HALLO & 2 OTHERS
Between
Republic
Applicant
and
Chairman Cooperative Tribunal
1st Respondent
Commissioner for Cooperative Development
2nd Respondent
and
Hassan Halo
Exparte Applicant
and
Rago Abdurehman
Interested Party
Regina Kagwiria
Interested Party
and
Rago Abdurehman (suing as chairman of Isiolo Central Farmers’ Co-operative Society)
Applicant
and
County Co-Operative Officer, Isiolo
Respondent
Ruling
1. I have considered the notice of motion dated 15th August, 2019 seeking to punish the County Co-operative Officer, Isiolo for allegedly disobeying an inquiry order.
2. The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Rago Abdurehman in which he avers that he and others were elected as official of the Isiolo Central Farmers’ Co-operative Society but the County Co-operative Officer, Isiolo had declined to facilitate the handing over of all documents relating to the society.
3. Respondent opposed the application by way of a P.O filed on 25th June, 2021 in which it is contended that the court order issued on 09th May, 2019 was a negative order capable of being enforced other than on the issue of costs.
4. I have considered the notice of motion dated 15th August, 2019 in the light of the supporting affidavit, the Preliminary Objection and submissions for the Applicant and the Respondent.
5. I have also perused the entire court file and I have not found any order that was directed at the Applicant which he can lawfully be cited for disobeying. Indeed, even the Applicant has not annexed any such order to his application.
6. Consequently, I find that the application dated 15th August, 2019 is unmerited and it is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
DATED AT MERU THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023WAMAE. T. W. CHEREREJUDGEAppearanceCourt assistant - Morris KinotiFor Applicant - Ms. Gatwiri for Murango Mwenda & Co. AdvocatesFor Respondent - Mr. Muriuki for Mbogo & Muriuki & Co. Advocates