Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2018] KEELC 3872 (KLR)

Japhether Wamalwa Kilui & 8 others v Mathew Munyole Wafula & another [2018] KEELC 3872 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
28 March 2018
SMS. Mukunya
140 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court ordered the arrest of two men who ignored a 2011 court order, showing courts will enforce compliance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a short ruling delivered by S. Mukunya, J at Bungoma on 28 March 2018 in a contempt application brought by way of a Motion under Order 40 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, supported by an affidavit of Japhter Wamalwa Kilui and Johnstone Wanjala Mafuta sworn on 16 November 2017. Mathew Munyole Wafula opposed the application through a replying affidavit. The court reviewed the motion, the supporting affidavit and the replying affidavit, and concluded that the respondent had failed to comply with the orders of the Court issued on 8 March 2011. On that finding, the court directed that a warrant of arrest issue against Mathew Munyole Wafula and Ben Machabe Wafula, requiring them to be brought before the court to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court as by law provided. The ruling was delivered in the presence of Mr. Murunga, holding brief for Khakula for the respondent/applicant, with Joy as court assistant; the respondent was absent. No costs order was made and no authorities were cited. The disposition is interlocutory in nature: it issues a show-cause warrant in contempt proceedings rather than finally determining the underlying suit, which arises from orders dating back to 2011.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent was in contempt of the court's orders of 8/3/2011

Holding

The court found non-compliance with the orders of 8/3/2011 and directed that the respondent and another be brought to court by warrant of arrest to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt.

Reasoning

The judge perused the motion filed under Order 40 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the supporting affidavit of the applicants sworn on 16/11/2017 and the replying affidavit of Mathew Munyole Wafula. On that documentary material, the court was satisfied that the respondent had not complied with the orders of 8/3/2011, warranting the issue of a warrant of arrest to compel attendance to show cause against punishment for contempt.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who fails to comply with court orders may be brought before the court to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt, with a warrant of arrest issuing under Order 40 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That a warrant of arrest should issue against Mathew Munyole Wafula and Ben Machabe Wafula to be brought to court to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court as by law provided
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 40 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules (contempt for disobedience of court orders)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Japhether Wamalwa Kilui & 8 others v Mathew Munyole Wafula & another [2018] KEELC 3872 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3872/eng@2018-03-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.