St. Mary Rescue & Nursing Home & another v Muriuki & another
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court fined a landlord and auctioneer KES 100,000 each for ignoring a tribunal order protecting a tenant's home.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were guilty of contempt of the tribunal order of November 15, 2021
The respondents were found guilty of contempt; the applicant proved beyond the required standard that the respondents locked the suit premises and disconnected water and electricity in disobedience of the order
The court considered the affidavits, annexures and the inventory report of Emmanuel C Ndune dated December 6, 2021, and the rent inspector's report showing the premises locked and utilities disconnected. It held non-parties aware of an order may be punished for disobeying it, and that the applicant had discharged the higher quasi-criminal standard of proof.
Whether the court could stay further proceedings in Rent Restriction Tribunal Case No E757 of 2021
Stay refused; no justification established
Relying on Halsbury's Laws of England, the court held that stay of proceedings is a grave interruption of a party's right to litigate to trial, to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases. There was no appeal before the court, no evidence of the stage of the tribunal suit, and no compelling circumstances shown.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities
- Persons who commit contempt of a court order can be punished even if they were not party to the suit
- Under section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, disobedience of an order of the court is an offence punishable by a fine not exceeding twenty million shillings or imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both
- Stay of proceedings should be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances; the threshold is beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.The respondents are found guilty of contempt for willfully disobeying the court order issued on November 15, 2021
- 2.The respondents are fined Kshs 100,000 each, in default to serve a term of 30 days' imprisonment, effective immediately
- 3.The costs of the application to be borne by the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 8(1) of the Judicature Act Cap 8; Order 51 rules 1, 2, 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 1A & B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "St. Mary Rescue & Nursing Home & another v Muriuki & another", Case Analysis (2022). Miscellaneous Application E018 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/13301/eng@2022-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.