The court found that the respondent's application to arrest the ruling on the contempt application and to set aside the injunction order was unmerited. The request to discharge or vary the injunction was premature, as the application for injunction pending appeal had not been heard inter partes, and the alleged non-disclosure of the Debt Agreement did not justify setting aside the order at this stage. On the contempt application, the court held that while the order was clear and had been properly served (including via the respondent's advocates), the petitioner failed to prove willful disobedience to the requisite standard. The evidence presented, including photographs and remittance advices, did not sufficiently link the alleged acts to the respondent or demonstrate that the Kshs. 4,000,000/= was wrongfully extracted in breach of the order. The standard of proof for contempt, being higher than the balance of probabilities, was not met. Both the respondent's application and the petitioner's contempt application were dismissed with costs.