VWK v JKM (Matrimonial Cause E053 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 10451 (KLR) (Family) (14 July 2026) (Ruling)

VWK v JKM (Matrimonial Cause E053 of 2021) [2026] KEHC 10451 (KLR) (Family) (14 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10451 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts) Family Matrimonial Cause E053 of 2021 LW Gitari, J July 14, 2026 Between VWK Applicant and JKM Respondent Ruling Background Information 1.The Applicant, VWK, filed a Notice of Motion dated 27th November, 2025 under Sections 1, 1A, 2, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Court Act, seeking the following orders:i.Spentii.That the Respondent, JKM, be found in contempt of the court orders issued on 7th August 2024.iii.That property Nairobi Block 117/470 – Kamiti Farmers be sold by private treaty.iv.That the Deputy Registrar be authorized to execute all completion and transfer documents necessary for the sale of the property.v.That the documents executed by the Deputy Registrar be deemed sufficient instruments for completion and transfer of the property.vi.That upon sale of the property, the Applicant be paid Kshs. 9,000,000/= being one-half of the value of the property without developments as reflected in the valuation report.vii.That the Court grant such further orders as may be necessary to uphold its authority and dignity.viii.That costs of the application be provided for. 2.The application is premised on the grounds that the Court, in its judgment delivered on 7th August 2024, ordered that the suit property be shared equally between the parties; that despite being aware of the judgment, the Respondent has refused to comply with the orders; that such conduct amounts to deliberate disobedience and contempt of court. The applicant states that unless the Court intervenes, its authority will continue to be undermined; and that the Court should invoke its contempt jurisdiction and facilitate implementation of its judgment by authorizing the sale and transfer of the property. 3.The application is supported by the affidavit of VWK, sworn in 27th November, 2025.The deponent states that on 7th August 2024, the Court delivered judgment directing that property Nairobi Block 117/470 – Kamiti Farmers be shared equally between herself and the Respondent. She referred to annexed copy of the judgment marked "VWK-1." 4.The applicant deposes that despite service of the judgment, the Respondent has wilfully refused to comply with the court orders. The Applicant further states that a valuation report dated 11th November 2025 assessed the property at Kshs.20,000,000./= inclusive of developments and Kshs. 18,000,000/= exclusive of developments. She attached to the application a copy of the valuation report annexed and marked "VWK-2." 5.The applicant contends that the Respondent's continued refusal to comply amounts to deliberate disobedience of the Court's orders and undermines the authority of the Court. She therefore urges the Court to invoke its contempt jurisdiction, authorize enforcement of its judgment through the sale of the property and execution of the requisite transfer documents by the Deputy Registrar, and grant the orders sought in the application in the interests of justice. Issues for Determination 6.I have considered the application, the supporting affidavit and the material placed before the Court. The issues arising for determination are:i.Whether the Applicant has established a basis for citing the Respondent for contempt of court.ii.Whether the Court should grant the consequential orders sought to facilitate implementation of its judgment delivered on 7th August 2024. Analysis and Determination 7.The jurisdiction of this Court to punish for contempt exists to uphold the rule of law and preserve the authority and dignity of the Court. To demonstrate the importance and seriousness with which the courts will deal with any conduct that may be deemed or found to be in contempt of court or judicial process, it may be necessary to look at some decisions on the subject. The Supreme court in the case of Kenya Human Rights Commission V. AG & Another [2018] eKLR observed that the power to punish for contempt by the High Court and the Court of Appeal derive its authority from Section 5 (1) of the Judicature Act; and involves procedure fairness, fair hearings and the rule against bias. 8.In Gulabchand Popatlal Shah & Another Civil Application No. 39 of 1990, (unreported), the Court of Appeal stated;“… It is essential for the maintenance of the Rule of Law and good order that the authority and dignity of our courts are upheld at all times. This court will not condone deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy away from its responsibility to deal firmly with proved contemnors ……” 9.In Hadkinson –v- Hadkinson (1952) 2 All ER. 567, it was held that:“It is plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or in respect of, who an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void.” 10.It is also imperative to note that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and may result in penal consequences. In, Re Breamblevale Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1062, Lord Denning MR. (as he then was), at page 1063, had this to say,“A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time– honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt”. 11.Consequently, the Court must exercise caution before making a finding of contempt. In Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd [1985] KLR 229, the Court of Appeal held that the standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than proof on a balance of probabilities though not as high as proof beyond reasonable doubt. 12.From the material before the Court, there is evidence that a judgment was delivered on 7ath August, 2024 and that the Applicant contends that the Respondent has failed to cooperate in its implementation. The Respondent has not controverted those allegations. Nevertheless, before making a finding that may expose the Respondent to penal sanctions, the Court considers it appropriate, in the interests of fairness and due process, to accord him an opportunity to explain his alleged non-compliance. 13.The Court retains the inherent jurisdiction to ensure that its judgments are obeyed and implemented. At the same time, the requirements of procedural fairness demand that a party facing contempt proceedings be afforded an opportunity to be heard before any adverse finding is made against him. 14.In the circumstances, it is important that the respondent be given an opportunity to be heard. I therefore order that a Notice to Show Cause requiring the Respondent to appear before the Court and explain why he should not be cited for contempt of court shall be served on him. The Court shall thereafter determine whether the threshold for contempt has been met and, if necessary, consider the consequential orders sought for enforcement of the judgment. Disposition 15.Accordingly, I make the following orders:a.A Notice to Show Cause shall issue requiring the Respondent, JKM, to appear before this Court virtually on 30th July, 2026 and show cause why he should not be cited and punished for contempt of court for his alleged willful disobedience of the judgment and orders of this Court delivered on 7th August, 2024.b.The Applicant shall ensure personal service of the Notice to Show Cause together with a copy of this ruling upon the Respondent and shall file an Affidavit of Service before the hearing date.c.The prayers seeking the sale of Nairobi Block 117/470 – Kamiti Farmers, authorization of the Deputy Registrar to execute the completion and transfer documents, payment of the Applicant's share of the proceeds, and all other consequential reliefs shall remain pending and shall be considered after the determination of the Notice to Show Cause.d.Costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the contempt proceedings.It is so ordered. DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026L. GITARIJUDGE