[2020] KEHC 7203 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 7203 (KLR)

The court found that the order of 22nd July 2019 merely quashed the decision of the meeting held on 30th June 2016 and did not grant any positive orders reinstating the applicant or requiring the contemnors to take specific action. The applicant subsequently filed a separate suit seeking damages based on the same...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 7203 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Pridgeon Namasaka Barasa; Respondent: Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Co-operative, Bungoma County; Respondent: Mathew Makanda; Respondent: Stanslaus Wambani; Respondent: Bonventure Masibo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review 3 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
SN Riechi
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Judicial Review Orders, Abuse of Process, Cooperative Societies Governance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Contempt of Court Judicial Review Orders Abuse of Process Cooperative Societies Governance

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pridgeon Namasaka Barasa

Applicant

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Co-operative, Bungoma County

Respondent

Mathew Makanda

Respondent

Stanslaus Wambani

Respondent

Bonventure Masibo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the contemnors disobeyed the court order issued on 22nd July 2019.
  2. 2 Whether the application for contempt is properly before the court given the applicant's subsequent suit for damages.
  3. 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order of 22nd July 2019 merely quashed the decision of the meeting held on 30th June 2016 and did not grant any positive orders reinstating the applicant or requiring the contemnors to take specific action. The applicant subsequently filed a separate suit seeking damages based on the same court decision. The court held that pursuing contempt proceedings while simultaneously seeking damages for the same cause amounts to an abuse of court process. Therefore, the application for contempt was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to bear the costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for contempt is dismissed for being an abuse of court process.
  • The applicant will bear the costs of this application.