James Maina Maigua & 2 others v Registered Trustees of the Anglican Church of Kenya [2018] KEELRC 1816 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan company that ignored a court decree was fined KES 200,000 — showing courts will enforce orders against businesses, but only within statutory limits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction and limitation under Section 34 of the Contempt of Court Act
The court had jurisdiction because the disobedience alleged relates to the amended decree issued on 6th November 2017, and the application filed on 6th February 2018 was within six months of that decree
The Respondent reckoned time from 1st October 2016 based on the original decree of 3rd October 2016, which would render the application time-barred. The court held that the material order disobeyed was the amended decree of 6th November 2017, not the original decree. Since the motion was filed within six months of the amended decree, the Section 34 bar did not apply and the court was seized of jurisdiction, consistent with the principle in Samuel Kamau Macharia and Lillian S that a court cannot exceed its statutorily conferred jurisdiction.
Defect in citing the wrong statutory provisions
The omission to cite Section 29(2) of the Contempt of Court Act did not defeat the application; the court looked to substantive justice under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution
The Claimants conceded the proper provision was Section 29 but argued the motion's invocation of 'all other enabling provisions of the law' cured the omission, relying on authorities that wrong citation of a provision is a curable procedural technicality. The court proceeded to determine the application on its merits rather than striking it out for the defective citation.
Liability for civil contempt
The Respondent was guilty of civil contempt under Section 4(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act for wilfully disobeying the amended decree
The motion asserted the decree was served on the Respondent's advocates, a position the Respondent did not controvert, having opted to file grounds of opposition without responding to the factual depositions. Service and knowledge thus stood uncontroverted, establishing wilful disobedience of the amended decree issued on 6th November 2017.
Appropriate sentence for a corporate body in contempt
The Respondent, being a corporate body, was fined Kshs. 200,000/-, the statutory maximum, payable within 48 hours; committal and the Kshs. 500,000/- fine sought were refused
The court held that the power to punish for contempt flows from statute, not from the prayers of applicants. Under Section 28(1) of the Contempt of Court Act the punishment is a fine not exceeding Kshs. 200,000/- or imprisonment not exceeding six months or both. Since the contemnor is a body corporate, a fine of Kshs. 200,000/- was the appropriate sanction.
Legal principles established
#- The limitation period for contempt proceedings under Section 34 of the Contempt of Court Act runs from the decree whose disobedience is alleged; where an amended decree is the order alleged to have been disobeyed, the court has jurisdiction if proceedings are brought within six months of the amended decree
- Civil contempt is wilful disobedience of a judgment, decree, direction, order or other process of a court under Section 4(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act, and the punishment for a body corporate is a fine not exceeding Kshs. 200,000/-
Court orders
#- 1.A fine of Kshs. 200,000/- imposed on the Respondent for disobedience of the court decree issued on 6th November 2017, to be paid within the next 48 hours
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt of Court Act No. 46 of 2016 (Sections 3, 4, 5(b) and 28(1)); Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "James Maina Maigua & 2 others v Registered Trustees of the Anglican Church of Kenya [2018] KEELRC 1816 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Cause No 190 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2018/1816/eng@2018-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.