Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 13th July 2020)· [2021] KEELC 3628 (KLR)

John Peter Kamau Ruhangi v John Ngugi Kabogo t/a Club Sidai Oleng [2021] KEELC 3628 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 April 2021
LKL. Komingoi
1,411 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Nairobi court found a club operator guilty of ignoring tribunal orders, giving him 60 days to comply or face a Kshs.200,000 fine or jail.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 13th July 2020 by John Peter Kamau Ruhangi, the registered owner of LR No 28177, seeking committal of John Ngugi Kabogo t/a Club Sidai Oleng for contempt of orders issued on 28th May 2020 by the Chairman of the Business Premises Rent Tribunal in BPRT Case No 653 of 2019 (Nairobi), which ordered removal of the tenant's temporary structures on the demised premises. The application, brought under section 5 of the Judicature Act and the inherent jurisdiction of the court, was canvassed by written submissions; the respondent, though granted time, filed none. The court framed two issues: whether the contemnor disobeyed the BPRT orders, and costs. The court found that the respondent was represented when the orders were made, had not appealed or sought to set them aside, and his assertion in his replying affidavit that only permanent buildings stood on the land did not answer the allegation of disobedience. Applying Hadkinson v Hadkinson and Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd, the court held that court orders must be obeyed unless varied or set aside, and that the respondent's failure to comply was wilful and deliberate despite a demand letter of 29th May 2020. The application was allowed: the respondent was found guilty of contempt, given 60 days to purge it, failing which he was to be fined Kshs.200,000/- or serve four months' imprisonment, with the OCS Muthaiga Police Station directed to effect arrest and committal. Costs were awarded to the applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent disobeyed the BPRT orders of 28th May 2020

Holding

The respondent was in wilful and deliberate contempt of the BPRT orders by failing to remove the temporary structures.

Reasoning

The BPRT judgment of 28th May 2020 ordered removal of the tenant's temporary structures on LR No 28177. The respondent was represented when the order was issued. He did not appeal or seek to set it aside, and his replying affidavit asserting only permanent buildings exist did not answer the claim of disobedience. He had ample time to comply after a demand letter dated 29th May 2020 and remained defiant.

p. 2
02

Obligation to obey court orders pending variation or setting aside

Holding

An unvaried, unappealed order binds the party against whom it is made notwithstanding any belief that it is irregular or void.

Reasoning

Relying on Hadkinson v Hadkinson and Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd, the court held that compliance with court orders is an unqualified obligation essential to the rule of law and the authority and dignity of the courts; a party cannot unilaterally decline to comply while treating an order as irregular.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Court orders must be obeyed unless varied or set aside, even if believed irregular or void.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The respondent is found guilty of disobeying the orders issued by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal on 28th May 2020.
  2. 2.The respondent is given sixty (60) days from the date of the ruling to purge the said contempt.
  3. 3.In default of purging the contempt, the respondent is fined Kshs.200,000/- or to serve four (4) months imprisonment.
  4. 4.The OCS Muthaiga Police Station is directed to arrest Mr. John Ngugi Kabogo and/or present him for purposes of committal to civil jail.
  5. 5.Costs of the application to be borne by the respondent.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Judicature ActSection 5
  • New Civil Procedure Rules (of England) Second Supplement to the 2012 White Book

Cases cited (4)

  • Ali Soitara Korir & Others vs Josephine Nyambura, Kaiga Macharia & Others
    [2007] eKLR
  • Mwangi Wangondu vs Nairobi City Commission
    Nairobi CA 1995 of 1998
  • Hadkinson versus Hadkinson
    [1952] All ER 567
  • Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd vs Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another
    [2005] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 5 of the Judicature Act; New Civil Procedure Rules (of England) Second Supplement to the 2012 White Book; the inherent jurisdiction of the Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Peter Kamau Ruhangi v John Ngugi Kabogo t/a Club Sidai Oleng [2021] KEELC 3628 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 13th July 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3628/eng@2021-04-22

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