Job Okuna Oyugi & 2 others v Timdar Said Sherman & another [2019] KEELC 1933 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court fined a landowner Kshs.200,000 for ignoring court orders, confirming that knowing about an order is enough, even without personal service.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether personal service of the contempt order was required
Personal service was not required as the orders were issued in the presence of all parties by consent and the contemnor admitted knowledge
The consent order of 9th September 2016 was made in the presence of all parties and adopted by the court. The 1st defendant admitted this in her replying affidavit. Since she had knowledge of the terms of the order, personal service was unnecessary, following Simmers Plaza Limited vs National Bank of Kenya.
Whether the 1st defendant was guilty of wilful disobedience
Yes - she wilfully disobeyed the orders by failing to remit rent to the joint account and failing to deposit the original title deed in court
The 1st defendant gave no reasonable explanation for non-compliance despite several opportunities to purge her contempt and notice of the plaintiffs' complaints. Applying the high-threshold test in Justus Kariuki Mate vs Martin Nyaga Wambora, the court was satisfied she acted with full knowledge of the orders. Her defiance justified committal consequences.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a court order dispenses with the need for personal service in contempt proceedings
- Court orders must be obeyed unless varied or set aside, even if believed irregular or void
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st defendant Timdar Said Sherman is found guilty of contempt for wilfully disobeying the court order issued on 4th July 2016 as varied with the consent of the parties on 9th September 2016
- 2.The 1st defendant is fined Kshs.200,000 to be paid within twenty one (21) days, in default to serve twelve (12) months imprisonment
- 3.The court orders made on 4th July 2016 requiring the status quo to be maintained are discharged forthwith and the plaintiffs are at liberty to execute the decree against the 1st defendant
- 4.The costs of the application be borne by the 1st defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 5, 27(b) and 28 of the Contempt of Court Act, 2016 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Job Okuna Oyugi & 2 others v Timdar Said Sherman & another [2019] KEELC 1933 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of motion dated 3rd May 2017 (suit number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1933/eng@2019-07-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.