Ian Paul Hutchinson t/a/ Bahnhof Bar and Restaurant Mtwapa v Charles Chishenga Majanja [2017] eKLR

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court assessed if the defendant had been adequately served with the injunction order, including whether personal service was required or if knowledge of the order sufficed, citing Rule 81.8 of the Supreme Court Rules and Kenyan case law.
• The court determined whether the defendant's actions in evicting the plaintiff from the premises, in violation of a temporary injunction, constituted contempt of court under Kenyan law, referencing precedents such as Hadkinson vs Hadkinson and the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
• The court examined the validity of the lease agreement, which the plaintiff claimed was enforceable until 2018, and whether the defendant's assertion that the lease had been terminated justified the eviction.

Holdings

• The court ordered that the Defendant bear the costs of the application, as part of the ruling on 27th July 2017. This was in addition to the contempt finding and arrest warrant.
• A warrant of arrest was issued against the Defendant to compel his appearance in court and to hold him accountable for failing to comply with the court orders. The Officer Commanding Mtwapa Police Station was directed to enforce this order.
• The court found the Defendant, Charles Chisenga Majanja, in contempt of court for deliberately and maliciously evicting the Plaintiff, Ian Paul Hutchinson, from the premises despite existing court orders issued on 7th August 2015 and extended on 8th September 2015. The Defendant's actions were deemed to circumvent justice and deny the Plaintiff their legal entitlement.

Remedies

• The court orders the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the Defendant for contempt of court in failing to comply with previous injunctions, requiring his immediate arrest and appearance to show cause why he should not be punished for non-compliance.
• The Defendant is directed to bear the costs associated with the application, as part of the court's ruling on contempt of court for breaching injunction orders.

Legal Principles

• The court emphasized the paramount duty of all individuals to obey court orders, citing Romer L.J. in Hadkinson vs Hadkinson (1952) and Lord Bowen L.J. in Heelmore vs Smith (1886). This principle underscores that court orders must be complied with to maintain the rule of law and prevent interference with justice.
• Contempt of court requires proof beyond a balance of probabilities, as highlighted in the Court of Appeal's decision in Shimmers Plaza Ltd vs National Bank of Kenya (2015). The court stressed the high threshold for establishing contempt to avoid wrongful deprivation of liberty.

Precedent Name

• Mutitika vs Baharini Farm Ltd
• Republic vs Karisa Chengo & 2 Others
• Justus Kariuki Mate & Another vs Martin Nyaga Wambora & Another
• Shimmers Plaza Ltd vs National Bank of Kenya Ltd
• Basil Criticos vs the Attorney General & 8 Others
• Hadkinson vs Hadkinson

Cited Statute

• Contempt of Court Act 2016
• Judicature Act
• Environment and Land Court Act
• Supreme Court Rules

Judge Name

Passage Text

• Contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal character. It may lead to one being sent to prison and it must therefore be satisfactorily proved beyond a balance of probabilities.
• I find and hold that the Defendant's actions complained of in this application were deliberate and malicious. They were cleverly executed to circumvent the cause of justice and deny the Plaintiff his just entitlement.
• The object of the discipline enforced by the court in case of contempt of court is not to vindicate the dignity of the court or the person of the Judge, but to prevent undue interference with administration of Justice.

Damages / Relief Type

• Warrant of arrest issued against the defendant for contempt of court.
• Defendant ordered to bear the costs of the application.