' Background and Introduction
1. By an application dated 2nd April 2025, the applicant seeks to have the respondent cited for contempt of court for allegedly disobeying a court order issued by this court on 2nd November 2023. The applicant further prays for the respondent’s management to be committed to civil jail and for an order of compensation. The application is opposed by a replying affidavit sworn by Kenneth Mawira Muriithi, the respondent’s Senior Legal Counsel, on 25th September 2025.
Analysis and Determination
2. I have carefully considered the pleadings, the affidavits, the submissions of both parties, and the relevant applicable legal principles.
3. Regarding the issue of alleged contempt, the court’s analysis begins with establishing whether the respondent indeed disobeyed the court order of 2nd November 2023. The respondent’s compliance is evidenced by the email dated 10th November 2023, whereby the respondent served the documents listed in that email and within eight days of the issuance thereof. This timeline demonstrates prompt compliance with the court’s directive, dispelling any suggestion of willful disobedience.
4. Furthermore, the respondent retrieved further documents and provided explanations in response to subsequent requests from the applicant, through a letter dated 7th June 2024, and also furnished statements of accounts for various accounts. These actions indicate to me, an active effort by the respondent to adhere to the court’s directions and cooperate fully.
5. It is important to note that the applicant has not explicitly identified any specific documents that remain undisclosed or withheld by the respondent. The conduct of the respondent considered, further weakens the basis of the contempt claim. Contempt requires proof of a deliberate and willful disobedience of a clear and unambiguous court order, which the applicant has failed to establish beyond mere assertions. Given these circumstances, the Court finds no evidence that the respondent willfully disobeyed or deliberately flouted the court’s order. The respondent’s conduct suggests compliance and cooperation rather than contemptuous disobedience.
6. I further note that, during the proceedings of 29th May 2025, Ms Mutisya, representing the respondent, explicitly informed the Court that this matter had been concluded as of November 2023. Mr Tito, appearing for the applicant, did not object to this assertion. The Court’s record confirms there was no challenge to this statement. Additionally, the Court was informed of a similar pending matter, being E548/2023. This corroborates the submissions by the respondent. Pursuing contempt proceedings for a matter that appears to have been closed constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
Conclusion and Disposition
7. Based on the foregoing, I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds to establish contempt against the respondent. The application dated 2nd April 2025 is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
8. Further, in the interest of judicial economy and orderly case management, this file shall be marked as closed. The applicant shall be at liberty to pursue any further remedies or seek any other documents required, through the main suit as opposed to a miscellaneous application along the sides.
'
1. By an application dated 2nd April 2025, the applicant seeks to have the respondent cited for contempt of court for allegedly disobeying a court order issued by this court on 2nd November 2023. The applicant further prays for the respondent’s management to be committed to civil jail and for an order of compensation. The application is opposed by a replying affidavit sworn by Kenneth Mawira Muriithi, the respondent’s Senior Legal Counsel, on 25th September 2025.
Analysis and Determination
2. I have carefully considered the pleadings, the affidavits, the submissions of both parties, and the relevant applicable legal principles.
3. Regarding the issue of alleged contempt, the court’s analysis begins with establishing whether the respondent indeed disobeyed the court order of 2nd November 2023. The respondent’s compliance is evidenced by the email dated 10th November 2023, whereby the respondent served the documents listed in that email and within eight days of the issuance thereof. This timeline demonstrates prompt compliance with the court’s directive, dispelling any suggestion of willful disobedience.
4. Furthermore, the respondent retrieved further documents and provided explanations in response to subsequent requests from the applicant, through a letter dated 7th June 2024, and also furnished statements of accounts for various accounts. These actions indicate to me, an active effort by the respondent to adhere to the court’s directions and cooperate fully.
5. It is important to note that the applicant has not explicitly identified any specific documents that remain undisclosed or withheld by the respondent. The conduct of the respondent considered, further weakens the basis of the contempt claim. Contempt requires proof of a deliberate and willful disobedience of a clear and unambiguous court order, which the applicant has failed to establish beyond mere assertions. Given these circumstances, the Court finds no evidence that the respondent willfully disobeyed or deliberately flouted the court’s order. The respondent’s conduct suggests compliance and cooperation rather than contemptuous disobedience.
6. I further note that, during the proceedings of 29th May 2025, Ms Mutisya, representing the respondent, explicitly informed the Court that this matter had been concluded as of November 2023. Mr Tito, appearing for the applicant, did not object to this assertion. The Court’s record confirms there was no challenge to this statement. Additionally, the Court was informed of a similar pending matter, being E548/2023. This corroborates the submissions by the respondent. Pursuing contempt proceedings for a matter that appears to have been closed constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
Conclusion and Disposition
7. Based on the foregoing, I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient grounds to establish contempt against the respondent. The application dated 2nd April 2025 is therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.
8. Further, in the interest of judicial economy and orderly case management, this file shall be marked as closed. The applicant shall be at liberty to pursue any further remedies or seek any other documents required, through the main suit as opposed to a miscellaneous application along the sides.
'