Real Ventures Limited & 3 others v Akiba Bank Limited & 2 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed Real Ventures to start contempt proceedings against Endebess Development and its director, but refused broader protective orders because the applicants had already left the property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a breach of an undertaking given to the Court warranted leave to commence contempt proceedings
Leave was granted against the 2nd respondent and its director, the Court finding the conduct fell short of honourable behaviour although it stopped short of making a contempt finding.
The Court found that counsel for the 2nd respondent had given an undertaking that the 3rd and 4th applicants would have access to the premises, and from his own admission they were no longer there. Water and electricity disconnection had forced them out. On the affidavits of Adala and Gumo, the Court found there may have been a breach of a court order pursuant to the undertaking and that Gumo's conduct fell short of honourable behaviour, warranting leave but not a contempt finding at that stage.
Whether coercive and protective orders could issue after the applicants had vacated the premises
No - the Court declined prayers 2, 3 and 4 as moot in effect since the applicants were already out of the premises.
The Court held that restraint and police-assistance orders serve no purpose once the applicants have left the premises, and that the rent dispute underlying the ouster belonged to another forum. The undertakings given on 13th December 2006 were interpreted as securing access to the premises only until the pending application was heard or further orders issued.
Legal principles established
#- An undertaking given to the Court by counsel, breaches of which may ground contempt proceedings, may be enforced by way of leave to commence contempt even where the underlying conduct is characterised by the other side as a rent dispute.
- Rent disputes do not fall within the enforcement jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in an incidental contempt application.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to commence contempt proceedings against the 2nd respondent and its Director Hon. Gumo
- 2.Prayers 2, 3 and 4 of the application declined
- 3.Costs of the application to be costs in the intended appeal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 5(2)(b) and Rule 47 of the Court of Appeal Rules and the inherent power of the Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Real Ventures Limited & 3 others v Akiba Bank Limited & 2 others", Case Analysis (2007). Civil Application No. Nai. 3 of 2007. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2007/396/eng@2007-03-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.