https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11891

https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/11891

The court found that the 2nd Petitioner had been duly served, had been present when directions were given, had not filed any response, and had not attended to explain the default. On that basis, the Notice of Motion dated 15th June 2026 was unopposed and the court invoked the default clause issued on 1st July 2026,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 11891 (KLR)
Parties
1st Petitioner: Zipporah Wairimu; 2nd Petitioner: Isaac Kimemia; 1st Respondent: Brian Njuguna; 2nd Respondent: Joan Waithera; Interested Party/applicant: Catherine Wairimu
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition E011 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Constitutional and Human Rights Petition; Interlocutory Contempt Related Motion / Ruling on Inter Partes Hearing of Notice of Motion Dated 15th June 2026
Outcome
Application allowed; contempt proceedings and interim protective orders granted
Judges
["DO Chepkwony"]
Legal Topics
Non Compliance With Court Directions, Default Clause, Custody Order, Show Cause Notice, Civil Jail, Interim Injunctive Relief, Costs in the Cause
Source Language
en
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Family Law Non Compliance With Court Directions Default Clause Custody Order Show Cause Notice +3 more

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 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zipporah Wairimu

1st Petitioner

Isaac Kimemia

2nd Petitioner

Brian Njuguna

1st Respondent

Joan Waithera

2nd Respondent

Catherine Wairimu

Interested Party/applicant

Procedural Posture

Constitutional and Human Rights Petition; Interlocutory Contempt Related Motion / Ruling on Inter Partes Hearing of Notice of Motion Dated 15th June 2026

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Motion dated 15th June 2026 was unopposed
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd Petitioner had been duly served and failed to comply with court directions
  3. 3 Whether the court should invoke the default clause issued on 1st July 2026

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 2nd Petitioner had been duly served, had been present when directions were given, had not filed any response, and had not attended to explain the default. On that basis, the Notice of Motion dated 15th June 2026 was unopposed and the court invoked the default clause issued on 1st July 2026, allowing the application in full.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; contempt proceedings and interim protective orders granted

Orders

  • The 2nd Petitioner/Respondent is cited for contempt of court for willful disobedience of court orders issued on 12th March 2026.
  • A notice issues to the 2nd Petitioner/Respondent to attend court and show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail within seven days from the date of the ruling.