Siokwei Tarita Limited v The Commission of University Education & another [2017] KEELC 2117 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court fined two Kisii University officials for defying a court order, confirming you can't escape contempt by claiming you were never personally served.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Service and knowledge of the court order
The order was granted in the presence of the respondents' counsel; the contemnors are presumed to have known of it through their counsel, so personal service was secondary
The order of 14th December 2016 was made by consent/after argument in the presence of counsel for the respondents. Where an advocate appears for a party, he is presumed to report back to the client all that transpired affecting the client's case. Following Basil Criticos and Bhatnager, knowledge may be inferred from counsel's notification; the contemnors' denial of service could not stand against this inference.
Whether contempt was established
The applicant proved a valid order and disobedience: the respondents dismantled and removed fixtures and fittings and defaulted on rent during the currency of the order
The court found the 14th December 2016 conservatory orders valid and binding. The alleged contemnors admitted removing fittings and structures. Their denial of knowledge was untenable given counsel's presence when the order issued. The conduct constituted civil contempt, defined as disobedience to process of the court.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a court order supersedes the strict requirement of personal service; where a party acts with knowledge of an order, personal service need not be proved
- The breach in contempt proceedings must be proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities but not as high as beyond reasonable doubt
- A court order must be obeyed even if allegedly irregular, until set aside by the court
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that the 1st and 2nd alleged contemnors are in contempt of court
- 2.Each contemnor to pay a fine of Kshs. 100,000/= each
- 3.In default of payment of the fine, each contemnor to be jailed for a period of one month
- 4.Costs to the petitioners
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 23 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Siokwei Tarita Limited v The Commission of University Education & another [2017] KEELC 2117 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Petition filed 2nd December 2016; application for committal dated 7.2.2017 (Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2117/eng@2017-07-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.