Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Dora Okisa Munyama v Nereah Andenyi & 3 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Kisumu Civil Suit 161 of 2010 JACKSON ESITIKA suing as the administrator of the estate of DORA OKISA MUNYAMA..................................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS NEREAH ANDENYI..................................................................1ST DEFENDANT PERUS AMIMO …..................................................................2ND DEFENDANT LEONARD INDIATSI...............................................................3RD DEFENDANT HENRY OTIENO ABWAO …..................................................4TH DEFENDANT RULING The Notice of Motion dated 4th June 2011 prays for leave to commence contempt proceedings against the defendants. Although the same is praying for other substantive prayers, the applicants counsel at the arguing of this application dwelt largely on the 1st prayers, for leave. The affidavit of Jackson Esitika shows that the 1st respondent was served alone. There is also the attached photographs exhibiting some construction work going on in the suit property. The defendant has opposed application vide the grounds of opposition dated 25th June 2012. I have perused the said application as well as the grounds of opposition, I am inclined to grant the applicant prayer (1) thereof, that is leave to institute contempt proceedings against the respondent. The other issues raised by the respondent shall be determined at the time when the substantive application shall have been filed. Costs in the cause. Dated, signed and delivered at Kisumu this 14th day of November 2012. H.K. CHEMITEI JUDGE In the presence of: Ouko for Mwamu for the applicant P. J. Otieno for Odeny for the defendant HCK/aao

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.