[2021] KEHC 7862 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 7862 (KLR)

The Court found that there were no substantive orders issued against the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interested Parties that could form the basis of a contempt application. The directions and orders previously issued were procedural and did not restrain or injunct the Interested Parties from any specific actions. As such, the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 7862 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alex Misigo Matisha; Respondent: The Registrar of Societies; Interested Party: Simon Rugut; Interested Party: Samson Khalwale; Interested Party: Jacob Luseno; Interested Party: Levi Bosiko Bwamu; Interested Party: Maxwel Shitsimi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Judicial Review Application E1115 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Contempt Application Prior to Determination of Leave for Mandamus
Outcome
application dismissed in limine
Judges
P Nyamweya
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Abuse of Process, Judicial Review Procedure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Abuse of Process Judicial Review Procedure

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Misigo Matisha

Applicant

The Registrar of Societies

Respondent

Simon Rugut

Interested Party

Samson Khalwale

Interested Party

Jacob Luseno

Interested Party

Levi Bosiko Bwamu

Interested Party

Maxwel Shitsimi

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Ruling on Contempt Application Prior to Determination of Leave for Mandamus

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interested Parties are in civil contempt of the court order issued on 14th December 2020.
  2. 2 Whether the application for contempt is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that there were no substantive orders issued against the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Interested Parties that could form the basis of a contempt application. The directions and orders previously issued were procedural and did not restrain or injunct the Interested Parties from any specific actions. As such, the application for contempt was deemed frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process. The Court emphasized that contempt proceedings require a clear, specific order directed at the alleged contemnors, which was absent in this case. Furthermore, the substantive application for leave to seek an order of mandamus was still pending, making the contempt application...

Court Disposition

application dismissed in limine

Orders

  • The Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 5th February 2021 is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.
  • The ruling on the Applicant’s Chamber Summons dated 9th October 2020 shall be delivered by email on 19th March 2021.