[2010] KEHC 1268 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 1268 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate personal service of the court order and penal notice on the Managing Director and/or Company Secretary of the defendant, as required by law. The evidence showed only that the order was date-stamped by the defendant company, but there was no signature or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 1268 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Restvilla Limited; Defendant: Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 199 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Service of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Service of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Restvilla Limited

Plaintiff

Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's Managing Director and/or Company Secretary should be cited for contempt of court for disobeying an injunction order.
  2. 2 Whether personal service of the court order and penal notice was effected on the officers sought to be committed.
  3. 3 Whether the standards for proving contempt of court have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate personal service of the court order and penal notice on the Managing Director and/or Company Secretary of the defendant, as required by law. The evidence showed only that the order was date-stamped by the defendant company, but there was no signature or endorsement to confirm personal service on the specific officers sought to be committed. Given the serious nature of contempt proceedings, which may result in deprivation of liberty, strict compliance with service requirements is mandatory. The court held that the standards for proving contempt had not been met and dismissed the application with costs to the defendant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The plaintiff's application for committal for contempt is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant.