Maureen Wangui Kamande & 4 others v Nicholas Mwaniki Waweru t/a Mambo Moto Media & 2 others;Esther Moraa Mombo & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 2107 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court held that having a lawyer in court counts as knowing a court order, and disobedience can lead to fines and civil jail.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents, who were represented by counsel, had knowledge of the order of 30th June 2017 so as to be liable for contempt
Representation by counsel constituted notice of the order; the Respondents' counsel appeared severally after the order seeking directions on apportionment and the bank account, so they could not claim ignorance
The court found the ruling of 30th June 2017 was delivered in the presence of the Applicants' counsel, and although the Respondents' counsel were absent, they had participated in the underlying application. The firm Ochieng, Onyango, Kibet & Ohaga Advocates is also known as TRIPLEOK LAW, undermining the service objection. Counsel appeared repeatedly after the order, showing knowledge of its terms.
Whether the Respondents' failure to comply was wilful given their claims of seeking appeal and review and the ambiguity as to each Respondent's share
The court found the application merited but allowed time to comply, with contempt sanctions taking effect only upon continued default
The Respondents claimed to have lodged an appeal and sought review, but no Memorandum of Appeal was on record and no review had been granted. Their lawyers had sought directions on apportionment and agreed on the bank account, so they could not plead ignorance. Nevertheless, the court structured the orders to give a final 30-day window to deposit the funds before committal sanctions applied.
Legal principles established
#- It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against whom a court order is made to obey it unless and until it is discharged, even where the person believes the order to be irregular or void
- Notice of a court order is satisfied where the person was represented in court by counsel, and once notice is proved the respondent bears the evidential burden on wilfulness and mala fides
- Court orders are sacrosanct and must be obeyed even if a party believes they were not properly issued
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondents to deposit the sum of Kshs. 6,820,000/= in the joint account already agreed upon within 30 days from the date of the ruling
- 2.Failure to deposit, the Respondents to be cited for contempt and directed to pay a fine of Kshs. 100,000 each
- 3.In default of the fine, the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents to be committed to civil jail for one (1) month
- 4.The Applicants awarded the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 10 of the Constitution; Sections 4(a), 5, 28(1) and 29 of the Contempt of Court Act 2016; Section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maureen Wangui Kamande & 4 others v Nicholas Mwaniki Waweru t/a Mambo Moto Media & 2 others;Esther Moraa Mombo & 2 others (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 2107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 2nd August, 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2107/eng@2019-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.