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

High Court 2463 of 2016

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 795 OF 1997 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GITAU MUTUNGI (DECEASED) RULING 1. The application for determination is the summons general dated 12th November 2011. The applicant seeks that the respondent be punished for contempt of court. 2. The application is founded on provisions of the Law of Succession Act, Cap 160, Laws of Kenya, and of the Probate and Administration Rules. None of these provisions provide a framework for trial of contemnors for contempt of court. 3. The law which governs contempt of court in civil proceedings is set out in the Judicature Act, Cap 8, Laws of Kenya. 4. There should always be a strict compliance with the law when it comes to punishing for contempt of court. The proceedings governing the same are quasi-criminal in nature, for the penalty provided for the offence is either imprisonment or payment of a fine. Due to the punitive nature of the proceedings it is imperative that the law be complied with to the letter. 5. As due process has not been adhered to in this case, I find no basis for citing the respondent for contempt of court. The applicant should endeavour to follow the correct procedure with respect thereto. 6. I shall accordingly dismiss the application dated 12th November 2011. 7. As the deceased was a resident of Kiambu County and the bulk of his estate is situated in that County, I shall direct that the matter be transferred to the High Court of Kenya at Kiambu for final disposal. 8. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016. W. MUSYOKA JUDGE

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.