SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

MIKE MAINA KAMAU V ATTORNEY GENERAL & 3 OTHERS [2012] KEHC 272 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 272 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
272
Citation
[2012] KEHC 272 (KLR)
Decided
17 December 2012
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeContempt of CourtPosturePetition for Committal for Contempt of CourtCoramBosire, Cross, D.S.MAJAN, Engineer, Ojwang Ag
Holding

The court finds that the petitioner has not established service of the orders upon the alleged contemnors to the requisite standard.

Facts

The petitioner Mike Maina Kamau sought to have Hon. Franklin Bett, Mr David Ng’ang’a, and Engineer Joseph Nkadayo committed to jail and their property sequestrated for disobedience of a court order issued on 13th July 2010.

Issues

  1. Whether the alleged contemnors were served with the court order and Notice of Penal Consequences
  2. Whether the alleged contemnors willfully disobeyed the court order

Reasoning

The court ruled that the petitioner failed to prove service of the court order on the alleged contemnors, and thus the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on a balance of probabilities.

Outcome

The Notice of Motion is dismissed, and the alleged contemnors are discharged from these proceedings.

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion is dismissed.
  • The alleged contemnors are discharged from these proceedings.

Authorities cited

Legislation (3)
  • Judicature Act (Chapter 8 of the Laws of Kenya)
  • Rules of the Supreme Court of England
  • Civil Procedure Rules
Cases cited (3)
  • Isaac Wanjohi and Another v Rosalind Macharia Nairobi HCCC No. 450 of 1995 (Unreported)
  • Wildlife Lodges Limited v County Council of Narok and Another Nairobi HCCC No. 1248 of 2003 (Unreported)
  • Re Bramblevale Ltd [1970] CH 128,137
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case