TRANSMUTATION OF KENYA
SUPERIOR COURT JURISDICTION:
FROM PYRAMIDAL TO HOUR-GLASS
JURISDICTIONAL SYSTEM
By
Hon. Justice (Prof.) James Otieno-Odek,
J.A., SJD, EBS
Paper presented at the Annual LSK
Conference
Leisure Lodge, Mombasa, 15th August, 2014
PYRAMIDAL STRUCTURE OF SUPERIOR COURTS
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEAL
HIGH COURT
Introduction
1.
The Constitution is the constant North that determines the jurisdictional
question in Kenya’s legal system. Jurisdiction is everything and without it, a
court must lay down its tools. (See Nyarangi J. in Owners of the Motor
Vessel “Lillian S” v. Caltex Oil,(Kenya) Ltd [1989] KLR 1).
2.
The Supreme Court in the cases of In Re The Matter of the Interim
Independent Electoral Commission, S.C., Constitutional Application No. 2
of 2011; [2011] eKLR, and in Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v.
Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 Others, S.C. Application No. 2 of
2012; [2012] eKLR, held that the assumption of jurisdiction by Courts in
Kenya, is a subject regulated by the Constitution, statute law, and judicial
precedent. It was stated:
“A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the
Constitution or legislation or both. Such a Court
may not arrogate to itself jurisdiction through the
craft of interpretation, or by way of endeavours to
discern or interpret the intentions of Parliament,
where the wording of legislation is clear and there is
no ambiguity”.
3.
On 27th August, 2010, a new Constitution was promulgated in Kenya and
with it came a new definition of the phrase superior courts. Article 162 (1) of
the Constitution defines superior courts as the Supreme Court, the Court of
Appeal, the High Court as well as the Land and Environment Courts and the
Industrial Courts. Prior to the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, there
was the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
Pyramidal structure of Superior Court Jurisdiction in Kenya prior to
27th August 2010
4.
The structure of the superior court jurisdiction prior to promulgation of the
2010 Constitution can aptly be described as pyramidal in nature. The
penultimate court was the Court of Appeal whose jurisdiction was appellate
in nature. For second appeals to the Court of Appeal, the jurisdiction was
narrow and limited to points of law. On the other hand, the High Court has
always had unlimited original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal matters.
The High Court also has an appellate jurisdiction as provided for in the Civil
and Criminal Procedure Acts (Caps 21 and 75 of the Laws of Kenya
respectively). The combined jurisdiction of the High Court and Court of
Appeal can be described as pyramidal in nature. The base of the pyramid
represents the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court while the
apex of the pyramid encapsulated the narrow appellate jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeal.
5.
Subsequent to the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution and in view of the
jurisprudential exposition by the Supreme Court, the jurisdictional
competence of the superior courts in Kenya has now metamorphosed into
what can aptly be depicted as an hour-glass jurisdictional system with the
High Court at the base, the Court of Appeal at the narrow centre and the
Supreme Court at the broad apex of the glass. Analysis of the constitutional
provisions and the emerging interpretative jurisprudence clearly illustrates
the metamorphosis.
Normative Jurisdiction of the Superior Courts
6.
The following constitutional provisions set the jurisdictional competence of
each of the superior courts.
(A) Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
Article 163 (3) of the Constitution lays down the jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court as follows:
a) Exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes
relating to elections to the office of the President.
b) Appeals from Court of Appeal as of right in any case
involving the interpretation or application of the Constitution
or in any other case in which the Supreme Court or the Court
of Appeal certifies that a matter of general public importance
is involved.
c) The Court has an advisory jurisdiction to given an opinion at
the request of the national government, any State organ or
any county government with respect to any matter concerning
county government.
d) Under Section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act, 2011, “In any
proceeding before the Supreme Court, any judge of the Court may
make any interlocutory orders and give any interlocutory
directions as the judge thinks fit, other than an order or direction
that determines the proceeding or disposes of a question or issue
before the Court in the proceeding.”
e) On the question whether the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction
to grant interlocutory orders, and more particularly, orders of stay
of execution of decrees issued by other superior Courts; this
question was laid to rest in the case of The Board of Governors of
Kabarak High School – v- Macolm Bell & Daniel Toroitich arap Moi
Sup. Ct. Petitions Nos. 6 and7 of 2013 where it was stated:
Where the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction derived
from the Constitution and the law, it is equally empowered
not only to exercise its inherent jurisdiction, but also to
make any essential or ancillary orders such as will enable it
to sustain its constitutional mandate as the ultimate
judicial forum. A typical instance of such exercise of
ancillary power is that of safeguarding the character and
integrity of the subject-matter of the appeal, pending the
resolution of the contested issues.
(B) Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
Article 164 (3) of the Constitution stipulates that the jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeal shall be:
a) to hear appeals from the High Court and
b) any other court or tribunal as prescribed by an Act of
Parliament. The Appellate Jurisdiction Act has introduced
one qualification for the exercise of the court‘s jurisdiction,
that is, that the law must specifically provide for the right of
appeal.
c) As regards, appeals arising from election petitions, the
Court of Appeal is empowered to hear such appeals by
dint of section 85A of the Elections Act 2011.
d) In Richard Ncharpi Leiyagu v Independent Electoral
Boundaries Commission & 2 Others,[2013] eKLR (Civil
Appeal No. 18 of 2013) it was stated that a Court of Appeal
will not interfere with the exercise of the trial Judge's
discretion unless it is satisfied that the Judge in exercising
his discretion misdirected himself in some matters and as a
result arrived at a wrong decision, or unless it is manifest
from the case as a whole that the Judge has been clearly
wrong in the exercise of his discretion and that as a result
there has been a miscarriage of justice.
e) In the case of Maina vs Mugiria, [1983] KLR 78, it is stated
that on a second appeal, only matters of law may be taken.
If the High Court upholds a resident magistrate on a
question of whether or not he exercised his discretion
judicially, the issue as to whether he was right or wrong to
do so is a question of law.
f) The Court of Appeal has an original and discretionary
jurisdiction to grant orders for stay under Rule 5 (2) (b) of
the Court of Appeal Rules. In Ishmael Kagunyi Thande v
Housing Finance of Kenya Ltd Civil Application No. Nai
157 of 2006 the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal was
stated in the following manner: “The jurisdiction of the
court under rule 5(2) (b) is not only original but also
discretionary.” That the Court of Appeal has original
jurisdiction was reiterated by Githinji JA in Equity Bank
Limited vs. West Link Mbo Limited Civil Application No.
NAI 78 of 2011 wherein he stated that: “It is trite law in
dealing with 5(2) (b) applications the Court exercises
discretion as a court of first instance. … ; that rule 5(2)(b)
is a procedural innovation designed to empower the Court
entertain an interlocutory application for preservation of
the subject matter of the appeal in order to ensure the just
and effective determination of appeals.” In Githinji v Amrit
& Another [2004] eKLR it was stated that the principles
applicable in an application under rule 5(2) (b) of the Court
of Appeal Rules are now well settled. The applicant must
demonstrate that he has an arguable appeal which is not
frivolous. Secondly, he also needs to show that the result of
such appeal, if successful, would be rendered nugatory if
the application for stay was refused.”
(C)
Jurisdiction of the High Court
Pursuant to Article 165 (3) of the Constitution, the High Court has the
following jurisdiction:
a) unlimited original jurisdiction in criminal and civil matters;
b) jurisdiction to determine the question whether a right or
fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights has been denied,
violated, infringed or threatened;
c) jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of a tribunal
appointed under the Constitution to consider the removal of a
person from office;
d) jurisdiction to hear any question respecting the interpretation of
the Constitution;
e) supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and over any
person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial
function.
f) special jurisdiction in electoral matters to determine any
question as to whether a person has been validly elected as a
Member of Parliament (Article 105(1)(a) of the Constitution).
Hour glass jurisdiction of superior courts
6. The learned Deputy Chief Justice and Vice-President of the Supreme Court,
K.H. Rawal in her concurring opinion in Anami Silverse Lisamula v. The
Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and Two Others, Sup.
Ct. Petition No. 9 of 2014 [at paragraph 135] made the observation that the
peculiar nature of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 informs the peculiarity of
the Judiciary in the new dispensation, and more so, that of the Supreme Court.
7.
In the case of Hon. Lemanken Aramat –v- Harun Meitamei Lempaka, SC
Petition No. 5 of 2014,it was stated that the Supreme Court as the penultimate
court is not in the more constrained position in which the Court of Appeal had
been, at the time of “Lillian S”.
The Supreme Court of Kenya: A Substantially-enlarged Jurisdiction
under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
8. The following principles are discernible from the jurisprudence of the Supreme
Court particularly as stated in the case of Hon. Lemanken Aramat –vHarunMeitameiLempaka, SC Petition No. 5 of 2014.
I.
Under the Supreme Court Act, 2011 (Act No. 7 of 2011), the
Supreme Court is the formal custodian of the interpretive process
for Constitution, and in this context it is not possible to detract
from the Supreme Court’s authority to hear and determine all
the relevant constitutional questions.
II.
Kenya’s Constitution directs the Supreme Court to take no rest,
until all unsettled issues of its interpretation and application are
resolved.
III.
A question whether a particular Court has the jurisdiction to
determine an issue coming up before it, crystallizes in the
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 163(4)(a) and/or
(b). The Supreme Court is, thus, required to delve into issues of
application or interpretation of the Constitution and, indeed,
those of general public importance. Therefore, the Supreme
Court cannot close its mind to the evaluation of even a single
provision of the law or the Constitution.
IV.
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction in relation to electoral disputes
is broader than that of the other superior courts. While the
Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction is based on Section 85A of the
Elections Act, with its prescribed timelines, that of the Supreme
Court is broader and is founded on the generic empowerment of
Article 163 of the Constitution, which confers an unlimited
competence for the interpretation and application of the
Constitution; and this, read alongside the Supreme Court Act,
2011 (Act No. 7 of 2011) illuminates the greater charge that is
reposed in the Supreme Court, for determining questions of
constitutional character.
V.
Article 163(7) of the Constitution specially empowers
Supreme Court to give stewardship to the terms of
Constitution, in particular, safeguards for individual rights
for the scheme of just redress to all matters in dispute.
the
the
and
The
VI.
Constitution’s prescription is carried further in the Supreme
Court Act, 2011 which requires the Court to “assert the
supremacy of the Constitution and the sovereignty of the people
of Kenya” [Section 3(a)]; to “provide authoritative and impartial
interpretation of the Constitution” [Section 3(b)]; and to
“develop rich jurisprudence that respects Kenya’s history and
traditions and facilitates its social, economic and political
growth” [Section 3(c)].
The Supreme Court’s special jurisdiction as the final interpreter
of the Constitution entrusts the Court with the responsibility of
assuring sanctity to its declared principles. The Court’s mandate
in respect of such principles cannot, by its inherent character, be
defined in restrictive terms. Questions that come up in the course
of dispute settlement especially those related to governance, are
intrinsically issues importing the obligation to interpret or apply
the Constitution – and consequently, issues falling squarely
within the Supreme Court’s mandate under Article 163(4)(1)(a),
as well as within the juridical mandate of the Court as prescribed
in Article 259(1)(c) of the Constitution, and in Section 3(c) of the
Supreme Court Act, 2011 (Act No. 7 of 2011).
VII.
The Supreme Court’s jurisdiction is not restricted by longstanding conventions (See concurring opinion of Mutunga, C.J.
& P. in Jasbir Singh Rai and Three Others v. Tarlochan Singh
Rai and Four Others, Sup. Ct. Petition No. 4 of 2012),
[paragraph 81].
VIII.
The Supreme Court, by virtue of its status as the ultimate Court
in the settlement of the course of jurisprudence, holds a crucial
place in the determination of questions of ‘pure law’ bearing on
matters of public interest.
9. Unlimited appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to interpret the
Constitution in historical context
I.
In Gatirau Peter Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others
S.C. Petition No. 2B of 2014; [2014] eKLR, the Supreme Court
stated that Article 87 (1) grants Parliament the latitude to enact
legislation to provide for timely resolution of electoral disputes.
This provision must be viewed against the country‘s electoral
history.
II.
III.
Section 3 of the Supreme Court Act vests the Court inter alia with
power to develop rich jurisprudence that respects Kenya‘s history
and traditions and facilitates its social, economic and political
growth.
The Hon. Chief Justice in his concurring opinion in Gatirau Peter
Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, S.C. Petition No.
2B of 2014; [2014] eKLR citing his dicta In Re the Speaker of the
Senate &Another – v- Attorney General & 4 others, (2013) eKLR
expressed himself as follows:
“In my opinion, this provision (Section 3 of the Supreme
Court Act) grants the Supreme Court a near-limitless and
substantially elastic interpretative power. It allows the
Court to explore interpretative space in the country’s
history and memory that, in my view, goes beyond the
minds of the framers whose product and appreciation of
the history and circumstances of the people of Kenya, may
have been constrained by the politics of the moment”.
IV.
In Hon. Lemanken Aramat –v- Harun Meitamei Lempaka, SC
Petition No. 5 of 2014, the Supreme Court observed that issues of
merit as may have come up before lower Courts that lacked
jurisdiction are not beyond competence and jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court.
V.
The inherently enlarged competence of the Supreme Court is an
element not shared with any of the lower Courts. (See concurring
opinion of Ojwang SCJ in Anami Silverse Lisamula v. The
Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and Two
Others, Sup. Ct. Petition No. 9 of 2014.
VI.
It is a responsibility vested in the Supreme Court to interpret the
Constitution with finality and the Supreme Court carries the
overall responsibility [The Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article
163(7)] for providing guidance on matters of law for the State’s
judicial branch and it follows that its jurisdiction is an enlarged
one, enabling it in all situations in which it has been duly moved,
to settle the law for the guidance of other Courts.
10. It is not fatal to fail to cite a constitutional provision to invoke the
Supreme Court’s jurisdiction
In Gatirau Peter Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others, S.C.
Petition No. 2B of 2014; [2014] eKLR, at para. 69; the Supreme Court has
held that where specific constitutional provisions cannot be identified as
having formed the gist of the cause at the Court of Appeal, the very least an
appellant should demonstrate is that the Court’s reasoning, and the
conclusions which led to the determination of the issue, put in context, can
properly be said to have taken a trajectory of constitutional interpretation or
application.
11. New criterion for grant of stay orders – Public Interest to safeguard waste
of public resources
The emerging jurisprudence from the Supreme Court points to an additional
and new criterion for grant of stay orders. (See Mary Wambui Munene v
Peter Gichuki King'ara & 2 others. Supreme Court Civil Application No.
12 of 2014; see also Gatirau Peter Munya vs Dickson Mwenda Kithinji& 2
Others, SC Application No. 4 of 2014.
The new criterion is whether the grant of stay orders is in public interest.
The emerging jurisprudence shows that public interest includes the need to
avoid possible waste of public funds.
In Gatirau Peter Munya vs Dickson Mwenda Kithinji& 2 Others, SC
Application No. 4 of 2014 the Supreme Court expressed itself as follows:
…against the background of the public cause, we have focused our
perception on the public interest, and the concept of good
governance, that runs in tandem with the conscientious deployment
of the scarce resources drawn from the public. Proper husbandry
over public monetary and other resources, we take judicial notice, is
a major challenge to all active institutions and processes of
governance; and the Courts, by their established attribute of line-
drawing, must ever have an interest in contributing to the
safeguarding of such resources.
In the case of Zachary Okoth Obado – v- Edward Okongo Oyugi & 2
others, Supreme Court Civil Application No. 7 of 2014, the Supreme Court
expressed itself as follows:
“As to whether grant of such stay would be in the public
interest, we note that the applicant cited the dictum in the
Munya case in his submission that public funds are at risk of
being expended for an election when there is an impending
appeal that has a high probability of success. He asked that
this Court safeguards this public interest. If this Court had any
doubt as to this argument, our anxieties are allayed by the 2nd
respondent’s submission. The 2nd respondent, IEBC, is a
constitutional body charged with conducting elections in this
Republic. In so doing, it expends public funds. The
Constitution decrees under Article 201(d) of the Constitution
that public money shall be used in a prudent and responsible
manner. The IEBC has cited cases where it had expended
public funds to prepare for elections that finally never
materialized, because of the outcome of Court decisions. There
can be no better reason for grant of stay than in this case
where the IEBC itself is calling out loud for grant of stay so as
to safeguard public funds”.
12.
Conclusion: Unlimited Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
The emerging jurisprudence from the Supreme Court and the doctrine of
stare decisis depicts a fundamental metamorphosis of the jurisdictional
competence of the superior courts in Kenya from pyramidal to an hour-glass
jurisdictional structure. The current thread and trend in the jurisprudence
leads one to conclude that the Supreme Court has evolved to become a Court
with unlimited appellate jurisdiction coupled with powers to interpret history
and make determinations on un-pleaded issues. The difference between the
High Court and the Supreme Court is that the High Court has unlimited
original jurisdiction while the Supreme Court has unlimited appellate
jurisdiction. The word “original” is the distinguishing factor and for the
High Court it implies the power to receive evidence and consider facts in the
first instance. For the Supreme Court, the power to receive evidence in the
first instance is lacking except in Presidential Petitions where it has original
and exclusive jurisdiction. A litigant has no locus standi to directly file suit
before the Supreme Court unless he/she is seeking an advisory opinion. A
litigant who wants to benefit from the substantially enlarged unlimited
appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court must first litigate before the
Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has a significant role to play in
evaluating and narrowing down the legal issues for consideration by the
Supreme Court. The Hon. Chief Justice aptly captures the transformation of
the superior court jurisdictional competence when he stated In Re The
Speaker of the Senate & another – v- Attorney General & 4 Others, (2013)
eKLR that the Supreme Court has a near-limitless and substantially elastic
interpretative power… that, goes beyond the minds of the framers of the
Constitution. In so far as the jurisdictional competence of the Supreme Court
is concerned, the era of the “Lillian S” case is over – the Supreme Court as
the penultimate court is not in the more constrained position in which the
Court of Appeal had been, at the time of “Lillian S”.
THE CONCEPT OF CIVILISED NATIONS AND DISOBEDIENCE
TO COURT ORDERS
13.
Introduction
In the case of Hadkinson – v- Hadkinson, (1952) 2 All ER 211, it was
stated that it is a plain and unqualified obligation of every person against or
in respect of whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to
obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature
of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the
person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void. A party
who knows of an order, whether null and void, regular or irregular cannot be
permitted to disobey it. The validity of a court order is not to be tested by
litigants or the person to whom it is served. It would be dangerous if parties
would start to judge whether an order was null and void, regular or irregular.
14.
Pacific and Forcible resolution of disputes
In every society, differences in opinion, perspectives and disputes are bound
to arise. Even in a marriage, one ofthe guarantees to a successful and long
lasting marriage is the ability of two different people to amicable resolve
their differences. There are two ways of resolving disputes: by use of force
or peacefully.
Use of force to resolve disputes are short term and sow the seed for future
dispute and cyclical use of force. Use of force is premised on the concept of
might is right. The grievance of the subjugated party is neither addressed nor
resolved; it is buried and simmers; the routed party resorts to measures that
will enable it to acquire force and alter the balance of power.
On the other hand, peaceful settlement of disputes addresses the grievances
of both parties. Peaceful settlement of disputes is a process through which
the balance of rights and obligations are restored.
15.
Role of Court orders in civil, economic, social and political stability
When a public officer or any person promotes disobedience to court orders,
that person does not understand the role of the courts in socio-economic and
political stability of a country. Disobedience to court orders is recipe for
anarchy and breakdown in the rule of law, it encourages citizens to take the
law into their hands; it whittles down the confidence of the citizenry in the
judicial system. The absence of an effective judiciary is one of the indicators
of a failed state.
Arbitral and judicial systems is the cornerstone for peaceful or pacific
settlement of disputes. One of the attributes of a civilized society is the
ability to generally resolve dispute in a peaceful manner. The legitimacy of
the judicial system is derived from sovereignty and acceptance of its
decisions by the disputants. In a national context, the legitimacy of the
judicial system stems from the constitutional order and deference to court
orders. Disobedience of court orders undermines the legitimacy and dignity
of the courts.
There is a direct and linear relationship between disobedience to court orders
and impunity which progresses into social and political instability that
culminates into breakdown in the rule of law. He who disobeys a court order
is courting anarchy, civil disobedience, social and political instability and
promotes economic uncertainty because rights as determined by the courts
cannot be enforced. In other words, disobedience to court order promotes the
adage that let every man take the law into his/her own hands; and ultimately
might is right.
16.
Separation of powers and disobedience to court orders
Disobedience to court orders has been anchored on the concept of separation
of powers. In the Mumo Matemu case – v- Trusted Society of Human
Rights Alliance, (2013) eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that separation of
powers does not proscribe organs of government from interfering with the
other’s functions. It also entails empowering each organ of government with
countervailing powers which provide check and balances on action taken by
other organs. The Supreme Court in the case of Speaker of National
Assembly –v- Attorney General & 3 Others, (2013) eKLR stated:
“Parliament must operate under the Constitution which is the
supreme law of the land…Where the Constitution decrees a
specific procedure to be followed …both houses of Parliament
are bound to follow that procedure. If Parliament violates the
procedural requirements of the supreme law of the land, it is
for the courts of law, not least the Supreme Court to assert the
authority and supremacy of the Constitution. It would be
different if the procedure in question were not constitutionally
mandated. This Court would be averse to questioning
Parliamentary procedures”.
17.
Personal service and disobedience to court orders
In Basil Criticos – v- Attorney General & 8 Others, (2012) eKLR, and in
Kenya Tea Growers Association – v – Francis Atwoli & 5 Others, Petition
No. 64 of 2010, it was stated that where a party clearly acts and shows that
he had knowledge of a court order, the strict requirement that personal
service must be proved is rendered unnecessary. In Hadkinson – vHadkinson, (1952) 2 All ER 211 it was stated that a party who knows of an
order, whether null and void, regular or irregular cannot be permitted to
disobey it.
18.
Nullity of actions done in disobedience to court orders
In Clarke & Others - v – Chadburn & Others,(1985) 1 All ER 211, it was
emphasized that an act done in willful disobedience of a court order was not
only contempt of court but also an illegal and invalid act which cannot not
effect any change in the rights and liabilities of others. An act done in
disobedience of a court order is null and void ab initio and is a nullity in law.
19.
Civil and criminal measures to enforce obedience to court orders
Contempt of court is the traditional mechanism to ensure compliance with
court orders. Contempt of court refers to actions which defy a court's
authority, cast disrespect on a court, or impede the ability of the court to
perform its function. Contempt of court may be "direct" or "indirect". Direct
contempt occurs in the presence of the court - during a court proceeding, for
example. Indirect contempt occurs outside the presence of the court.
Contempt takes two forms: criminal contempt and civil contempt. Actions
that one might normally associate with the phrase "contempt of court," such
as a party causing a serious disruption in the courtroom, yelling at the judge,
or refusing to testify would often constitute criminal contempt of court. Civil
contempt of court most often happens when someone fails to adhere to an
order from the court, with resulting injury to a private party's rights.
Sections 96 and 131 of the Penal Code (Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya)
espouse provisions that enforce obedience to court orders and promote the
dignity of the courts.
Section 96 of the Penal Code provides that any person who, without lawful
excuse, the burden of proof whereof shall lie upon him, utters, prints or
publishes any words, or does any act or thing, indicating or implying that it
is or might be desirable to do, or omit to do, any act the doing or omission of
which is calculated—
(a)
(b)
(c)
……
…
to prevent or defeat by violence or by other unlawful means the
execution or enforcement of any written law or to lead to
defiance or disobedience of any such law, or of any lawful
authority, is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment
for a term not exceeding five years.
Section 131 of the Penal Code provides that everyone who disobeys any
order, warrant or command duly made, issued or given by any court, officer
or any person acting in any public capacity and duly authorized in that
behalf, is guilty of a misdemeanour and is liable, unless any other penalty or
mode of proceeding is expressly prescribed in respect of the disobedience, to
imprisonment for two years.
……. END ……