Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves Jonathan Teikan and the Kajiado Star (applicants) appealing against contempt orders issued in Ngong CMCC E143 of 2024. The lower court found them guilty of publishing defamatory content about Hon. Katoo Ole Metito (respondent) regarding Rombo Ranch in Kajiado. The applicants sought to stay execution of the contempt orders pending appeal, arguing it would violate their freedom of expression. The court dismissed the stay application, finding no evidence of substantial loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory. The applicants were committed to civil jail and ordered to pay a fine of KES 100,000, which they already paid.
Issues
- The court considered the Applicants' motion to stay the execution of the lower court's ruling and orders pending appeal. The Applicants argued that the contempt orders would significantly impact their operations as a newspaper, violating their freedom of expression under Articles 33 and 34 of the Constitution. The court evaluated whether they demonstrated substantial loss and provided security, ultimately finding that they did not meet the criteria for a stay.
- The court addressed the 1st Respondent's motion to strike out the first motion as an abuse of process. The Respondent claimed that the Applicants and 2nd Respondent colluded to pursue parallel proceedings (an appeal and a review) simultaneously, which is prohibited by Order 45 Rule 1(2). The court found no evidence of collusion and dismissed the second motion, allowing the first motion to proceed.
Holdings
- The court dismissed the second motion, finding no evidence of collusion between the Applicants and the 2nd Respondent, and thus the first motion was not an abuse of process.
- The court denied the stay application, concluding that the Applicants failed to demonstrate substantial loss or that the appeal would be rendered nugatory by the lower court's orders.
Remedies
- The court dismissed the second motion seeking to strike out the first motion, awarding costs to the Applicants.
- The court dismissed the Applicants' motion to stay the execution of the lower court's orders pending appeal, with costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principles governing the discretionary power to grant a stay of execution pending appeal under Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, emphasizing the requirement to demonstrate substantial loss and provide security. It also addressed the prohibition against concurrent appeal and review proceedings under Order 45 Rule 1(2), highlighting the prevention of abuse of judicial process through parallel litigation.
Precedent Name
- Butt v Rent Restriction Tribunal
- Dominic -vs- Muyienda (suing as personal representative and administrator of the Estate of Nicholas Maraga (deceased))
- Stanley Kangethe Kinyanjui V Tony Ketter & 5 others
- Multichoice (Kenya) Ltd v Wananchi Group (Kenya) Ltd & 2 Others
- Crescent Construction Co. Ltd v. Delphis Bank Ltd
- Blue Shield Insurance Company Ltd vs. Joseph Mboya Oguttu
- D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Limited v Joseph Mbaria Muchina & Another
- Kenya Shell Kenya Ltd v Kibiru & Another
- Kivanga Estates v National Bank of Kenya Limited
- George Gathura Karanja v George Gathuru Thuo & 2 Others
Cited Statute
- Constitution of Kenya
- Civil Procedure Rules
Judge Name
CW Meoli, J
Passage Text
- "The gist of the conditions set out in Order XLI Rule 4 (now Order 42 Rule 6(2)) of the Civil Procedure Rules was not met. There was no evidence of substantial loss to the Applicant, either in the matter of paying the damages awarded which would cause difficulty to the Applicant itself, or because it would lose its money, if payment was made, since the Respondents would be unable to repay the decretal sum plus costs in the two courts..."
- "The Applicants being aggrieved with the ruling and orders of lower court opted to pursue the remedy of appeal while the 2nd Respondent approached the lower court seeking review... the parallel proceedings by the two separate parties do not render the first motion vexatious or an abuse of the process of the court."
- "The court finds that the Applicants have failed to discharge the onus to demonstrate the likelihood of substantial loss... where there is no evidence of substantial loss to the applicant, it would be a rare case that an appeal would be rendered nugatory by some other event."