1. Contempt of court order is generally considered to be a writ of last resort and it is coercive in its function rather than punitive. It is available only where the person against whom it is sought to be issued is in contempt of court through having wilfully disobeyed its order. If the writ does issue, it temporarily places property of the contemnor into the hands of the sequestrators and denies him the right to enjoy or dispose of the property until a further order of the court. As the writ is very drastic in form, the courts have generally been reluctant to allow the writ to issue except in the clearest cases and will not normally issue the writ unless the conduct has been intentional or reckless. The conduct must be shown to be wilful. Consequently, the power to order summary imprisonment of a person in order to coerce that person to comply with a legal obligation, is far-reaching. There can be no doubt that indefinite detention for coercive purposes may involve a significant inroad upon personal liberty. It is also necessary and proper, however, for the exercise of the power to be accompanied by a high standard of procedural fairness.
2. In the Notice of Motion dated 18th March, 2026 brought under Section 5 of the Judicature Act, Order 52 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England, the applicant is seeking leave of this Honourable court to, primarily apply for the Orders that the Respondent James Baraka Ngai is in contempt of court for disobeying the orders issued by this honourable court on 14th day of June, 2024, reviewed orders issued on the 16th day of July 2025.
3. The Respondent on his part has filed a Notice of Motion dated 29th July, 2026 under section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act(Cap 21), Order 5 Rule 21, Order 10 Rule 11 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and inherent jurisdiction of this honorable court seeking to, primarily set aside, discharge and or vacate in its entirety the judgement delivered herein on 14th June, 2024 and all consequential or enforcement orders made pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned judgement delivered on the 14th June, 2024.
4. More significantly, in this matter, the Respondent has raised a preliminary point of law on the jurisdiction of the court over the matter. Consequently, I find it quite apposite, to dispose the issue of jurisdiction as the starting point in these diametrical applications for the simple reason, that in event, the objection on jurisdiction is sustained, then in the words of Lord Denning in the case of M acfoy Vs United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 All E.R. , would resound once more; “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the Court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the Court to declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad, you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.” (Emphasis supplied). Put differently, lack of jurisdiction renders the whole exercise, futile.
5. In the circumstances, I shall issue the following orders;
a. A temporary of stay of execution of the Judgement delivered on 14th June, 2024, do issue.
b. The Respondent to serve the notice of preliminary objection upon the Judgement Creditor in the next three days from the reading of this Ruling and a response be filed, three days thereafter.
c. Mention on 28/9/2026 for oral submissions.
Delivered virtually this 17th September, 2026 in the presence of Ms Kimani for the Applicant and Mr Muge for the Respondent.
2. In the Notice of Motion dated 18th March, 2026 brought under Section 5 of the Judicature Act, Order 52 Rule 2 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England, the applicant is seeking leave of this Honourable court to, primarily apply for the Orders that the Respondent James Baraka Ngai is in contempt of court for disobeying the orders issued by this honourable court on 14th day of June, 2024, reviewed orders issued on the 16th day of July 2025.
3. The Respondent on his part has filed a Notice of Motion dated 29th July, 2026 under section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act(Cap 21), Order 5 Rule 21, Order 10 Rule 11 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and inherent jurisdiction of this honorable court seeking to, primarily set aside, discharge and or vacate in its entirety the judgement delivered herein on 14th June, 2024 and all consequential or enforcement orders made pursuant to or in furtherance of the impugned judgement delivered on the 14th June, 2024.
4. More significantly, in this matter, the Respondent has raised a preliminary point of law on the jurisdiction of the court over the matter. Consequently, I find it quite apposite, to dispose the issue of jurisdiction as the starting point in these diametrical applications for the simple reason, that in event, the objection on jurisdiction is sustained, then in the words of Lord Denning in the case of M acfoy Vs United Africa Co. Ltd [1961] 3 All E.R. , would resound once more; “If an act is void, then it is in law a nullity. It is not only bad, but incurably bad. There is no need for an order of the Court to set it aside. It is automatically null and void without more ado, though it is sometimes convenient to have the Court to declare it to be so. And every proceeding which is founded on it is also bad and incurably bad, you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It will collapse.” (Emphasis supplied). Put differently, lack of jurisdiction renders the whole exercise, futile.
5. In the circumstances, I shall issue the following orders;
a. A temporary of stay of execution of the Judgement delivered on 14th June, 2024, do issue.
b. The Respondent to serve the notice of preliminary objection upon the Judgement Creditor in the next three days from the reading of this Ruling and a response be filed, three days thereafter.
c. Mention on 28/9/2026 for oral submissions.
Delivered virtually this 17th September, 2026 in the presence of Ms Kimani for the Applicant and Mr Muge for the Respondent.