Terry Wijenje & 5 others v Directline Assurance Company Limited & 6 others [2020] KEELRC 467 (KLR)

The Court examined the application without delving into its merits. It noted the Main Claim concerns a dispute between the Claimant and her employer, and any action - including changes in the employer - that would render the Claim nugatory or change its substratum is of interest to the Claimant. The Claimant must, however, show how the changes directly affect her, and the leave application must demonstrate knowing interference with the substratum of the Claim. Since the preliminary objection could not be resolved without such factual demonstration, it exceeded the proper scope of a preliminary objection and was dismissed.

Relying on the English procedural framework and the Court of Appeal's decision in Christine Wangari Gachege, the Court noted that following the Civil Procedure Rules 2012 (Part 81), leave is not required for committal for breach of a judgment, order or undertaking, but remains a requirement for other forms of contempt. The alleged contempts here were a collusive bargain to hand over management of the 1st Applicant's business and intended destruction of that business - interference with the administration of justice - not breach of an existing order, so leave is necessary.