John Kimani Nganga v Stephen Kamau Kariri & Others [2020] KEELC 2779 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether valid orders were issued on 5th December 2018 and to whom they were directed
Valid orders were issued, but they were directed to the Applicant and his members to prepare transfer documents for fully paid members and pay outstanding sums, not to the Respondents.
The 5th December 2018 mention was to confirm compliance with the 2nd October 2018 order requiring payment of Ksh 172,000. The court directed that transfer documents be prepared for fully paid members and that unpaid members pay within 45 days. The obligations therefore rested on the Applicant and his members, not the Respondents, whose alleged contempt could not be established.
Whether the Respondents are guilty of contempt of the order of 5th December 2018
No; the application for contempt fails.
The orders of 5th December 2018 were not directed at the Respondents but at the Applicant and his members, who had themselves failed to comply with the earlier payment order. The Applicant did not establish the elements of civil contempt against the Respondents, and members had not paid the outstanding sums needed to facilitate transfer.
Whether the court retained contempt jurisdiction despite the invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act
Yes; the court reverted to the law operating before the Act to avoid a lacuna, including section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act.
The Contempt of Court Act was declared invalid in 2018. The court held it was obliged to revert to pre-Act provisions to avoid a gap in enforcement of court orders, citing authority that a court without contempt power is not a court and that each level of court is expressly clothed with contempt jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- Elements of civil contempt: the applicant must prove the terms of the order, knowledge of those terms by the respondent, and failure to comply.
- Knowledge of a court order supersedes personal service.
- A court order binds the party against whom it is addressed and remains valid and binding until set aside.
- Where there is a lacuna in enforcement of remedies, the court may invoke its inherent jurisdiction under section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to grant effectual relief.
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 4th June 2019 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act and all enabling provisions of the law
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "John Kimani Nganga v Stephen Kamau Kariri & Others [2020] KEELC 2779 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 4th June 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2779/eng@2020-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.