[2017] KEHC 5411 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 5411 (KLR)

The court found that there was no evidence provided by the applicant to show that the respondent was served with, or was otherwise aware of, the tribunal's orders. The supporting affidavit did not establish service or knowledge, nor was there evidence that the respondent or its advocates were present when the ruling...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 5411 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Victor Oduor Wesonga; Respondent: Orange Democratic Movement Party
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Election Appeal 16 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Election Petitions / Application for Contempt Orders Following Tribunal Decision
Outcome
application struck out
Judges
F Tuiyott
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Tribunal Orders Enforcement, Service of Orders
Source Language
en
Election Petitions Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Tribunal Orders Enforcement Service of Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Oduor Wesonga

Applicant

Orange Democratic Movement Party

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petitions / Application for Contempt Orders Following Tribunal Decision

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was in contempt of the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal's orders issued on 12th May 2017.
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient evidence that the respondent was aware of the tribunal's orders.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court could grant contempt orders in the absence of proof of service or knowledge of the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no evidence provided by the applicant to show that the respondent was served with, or was otherwise aware of, the tribunal's orders. The supporting affidavit did not establish service or knowledge, nor was there evidence that the respondent or its advocates were present when the ruling was delivered. In the absence of proof of knowledge of the order, the court was not prepared to impose penal sanctions for contempt. The application was therefore struck out, but the court emphasized the importance of obeying tribunal orders and warned that willful disobedience, if proven, would attract penalties under the law.

Court Disposition

application struck out

Orders

  • The application dated 26th May 2017 is struck out.
  • No order as to costs.