REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Miscellaneous 1059 of 2004 HARRISON MAINGI ............................................................................APPLICANT VERSUS 1. S.T. MUGACHA (T/a Galaxy Auctioneers) 2. B. N. KAMAU, ADVOCATE 3. DANIEL NZIOKA ...................................................................RESPONDENTS RULING Contempt of court proceedings, by their very nature, are urgent. Once instituted, they ought to be prosecuted expeditiously and without undue delay. Such proceedings are intended to enforce the authority and dignity of the court, hence the need for them to be disposed of with dispatch. An application to commit the Respondents to jail for contempt of court was filed herein by notice of motion dated 22nd June, 2005. The said application was last before a judge on 26th November, 2007 when it was adjourned upon application by the Applicant. The Respondents then brought the present application by notice of motion dated 13th August, 2009 for dismissal of the said contempt application for want of prosecution. I have read the supporting and opposing affidavits. I have also given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsels appearing. No proper or credible reason for the delay in prosecuting the contempt application has been given. The said delay is about one year and nine months. It is unjust that the said application should remain hanging over the heads of the Respondents all this time. I will in the event allow with costs the application by notice of motion dated 13 th August, 2009. The contempt application by notice of motion dated 22nd June, 2005 is hereby dismissed with costs for want of prosecution. There will be an order accordingly. DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010 H. P. G. WAWERU JUDGE DELIVERED THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2010
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.