Section 30: Court's power to maintain order

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 1715/2548 (2005)

   Section 30 empowers the court to issue directions to maintain order and to prohibit conduct that causes annoyance or delay; improper behaviour in the court precincts can constitute contempt under Section 31(1) in its own right, without a prior Section 30 order being required.

   The accused threatened a witness in the court precincts before the witness testified, which the Court held to be disorderly behaviour amounting to contempt of court. The Court rejected the argument that contempt under Section 31(1) always requires a prior direction under Section 30, explaining that Section 30 concerns directions the court issues to maintain order, while disorderly behaviour in the precincts is punishable in itself.

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5346/2547 (2004)

   The plaintiff complained that the Labour Court's direction forbidding him from filing further documents of the same kind did not comply with Sections 30 to 33, but the Supreme Court did not decide that question. It held instead that a motion to set aside proceedings said to be irregular at the Supreme Court stage is for the Supreme Court itself to decide, so a court below that dismisses such a motion without sending it up acts improperly, and, no statute making an order on such a motion final, refusing an appeal against that order is improper too. On the motion itself, a Supreme Court judgment is final from the moment it is read to the parties and cannot be added to or amended, save for a minor error or slip; where the judgment dealt with every ground raised, there is no slip to correct.

   After the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of his labour claim, the plaintiff moved in the Labour Court to set aside the Supreme Court own proceedings as irregular. The Labour Court dismissed the motion because the case was final, refused his appeal against that order, and made a direction forbidding him from filing further documents of that kind. The Supreme Court held that a motion alleging irregularity at the Dika stage is for the Supreme Court to decide, so the Labour Court should have sent it up instead of dismissing it; that no statute makes an order on such a motion final, so refusing the appeal was also wrong; and it quashed both orders. Deciding the motion itself, it held that a Supreme Court judgment is final from the moment it is read and cannot be added to or amended except for a minor slip. The earlier judgment had held that all the plaintiff grounds disputed the Labour Court assessment of the evidence and were therefore appeals on fact barred by section 54 paragraph one of the Act establishing Labour Courts; it had dealt with every ground, so there was no slip to correct and the motion was dismissed.

3. Supreme Court Judgment No. 8912/2551 (2008)

   The court may issue a direction under section 30 only in one of two situations: where it is necessary to maintain order in the court precincts so that the proceedings are fair and expeditious, or to forbid a party from conducting the proceedings in a manner that is annoying, dilatory or unnecessarily extravagant. A direction issued under section 36(2) is not a direction under section 30, so breaching it cannot be contempt under section 31(1) read with section 30.

   On the facts there was no necessity to maintain order in the court precincts and no conduct of the proceedings that was annoying, dilatory or unnecessarily extravagant, so neither situation in section 30 arose. The direction the trial court had issued was made under section 36(2) and was not a direction under section 30. Whether or not the first accused had given the copied tapes to the second accused to disclose, his conduct therefore could not be contempt under section 31(1) read with section 30, and the Supreme Court, raising the point as one of public order, acquitted him of that charge. Whether breaching the section 36(2) direction amounted to disorderly conduct in the court precincts was not decided below and so was not before the Court.

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.