Kirara Kiiru & 4 others v Gee Tee Sons Limited & 2 others [2019] KEELC 2738 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to jail company directors for contempt because they were never personally served with the injunction they allegedly breached.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Service of the court order on the alleged contemnors
The directors of the 1st defendant were not personally served and had no knowledge of the order
The process server's affidavit showed he went to the company offices, was directed to Jane Wambui Thuo's office, but she declined to receive service on behalf of the company. There was no affidavit of service showing each director was personally served. Personal service or proven knowledge is a precondition to contempt findings against individuals.
Standard and burden of proof in contempt proceedings
The applicant must prove knowledge of the order and wilful disobedience to a standard above balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt
Contempt carries criminal character and may result in deprivation of liberty. The court relied on Court of Appeal authority establishing this intermediate standard and the requirement that the court be satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the contemnor acted with full knowledge of the order. The applicants failed to discharge this burden.
Piercing the corporate veil for contempt
No grounds were laid to remove the corporate veil to attach liability to directors
The applicants sought committal of directors of a company without establishing personal service or personal responsibility. Following the Emukule J holding, responsibility in contempt attaches to individuals, and the applicants neither served the directors personally nor laid grounds for lifting the corporate veil.
Legal principles established
#- For purposes of contempt proceedings, responsibility attaches to the individual official, not every official of the respondent
- The threshold for contempt requires proof of knowledge of the order and the standard is higher than balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 5th December 2016 is dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Section 36(1)(b) of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act; Order 30 Rules 3 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kirara Kiiru & 4 others v Gee Tee Sons Limited & 2 others [2019] KEELC 2738 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of motion dated 5th December 2016 (suit pending before the High Court, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2738/eng@2019-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.