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

Caroline Wairimu Wanjihia & another v I & M Bank Limited & another [2015] KEHC 7466 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 7466 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
7466
Citation
[2015] KEHC 7466 (KLR)
Decided
8 June 2015
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeContempt of CourtPostureApplication for Contempt of CourtCoramHavelock, Jenkins
Holding

The Court finds the Necessary Party in contempt of court and orders them to pay exemplary damages and to vacate the property.

Facts

The Plaintiffs claim that the Necessary Party, Hacienda Ltd, broke into their property, LR No 330/593 Apartment No 8, in Thomson's Estate Lavington, Nairobi, on 30/3/2015. The Necessary Party had previously transferred the property to I & M Bank Limited on 18/3/2015, but the transfer was not registered. The Plaintiffs seek eviction, contempt citations, and damages.

Issues

  1. Contempt of court by the Necessary Party for breaking into the Plaintiffs' property
  2. Interference with the administration of justice in the pending court proceedings

Reasoning

The Court explains the standard of proof in contempt proceedings and distinguishes between civil and criminal contempt. It rules that the Necessary Party's actions constitute contempt of court and not interference with the administration of justice.

Outcome

The Necessary Party is found in contempt of court and ordered to vacate the property.

Orders

  • Eviction of the Necessary Party from the suit premises
  • Citation for contempt of court
  • Order for exemplary damages

Remedies

  • Exemplary damages
  • Eviction of the Necessary Party

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • ELIUD MUTURI MWANGI (Practicing in the name and style of Muturi & Company Advocates) vs. LSG Lufthansa Services Europa/Africa GMBH and Another [2015] eKLR
  • OCHINO & OTHERS –VS- OKOMBO & OTHERS (1989) KLR 165
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