[2017] KEELC 684 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 684 (KLR)

The court found that the orders allegedly breached were directed at the Plaintiffs, not the Contemnors, and that the evidence of service on the Contemnors was general and lacked specificity. The Applicants failed to distinguish between structures existing before the order and those allegedly erected in breach. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 684 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Abdalla Mgute; Plaintiff: Felix Katana; Plaintiff: Pastor Harrison Njagi & 159 others; Defendant: Mohsin Bin Saleh Sherman; Defendant: Said Bin Saleh Sherman; Defendant: Hussein Bin Saleh Sherman; Defendant: Omar Bin Saleh Sherman; Respondent: Moses Mwakio; Respondent: Mohamed Tsumo; Respondent: Clement Gitahi Wanjohi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 44 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
CK Yano
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Service of Court Orders, Burden of Proof, Land Possession Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Injunctions Service of Court Orders Burden of Proof Land Possession Disputes

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdalla Mgute

Plaintiff

Felix Katana

Plaintiff

Pastor Harrison Njagi & 159 others

Plaintiff

Mohsin Bin Saleh Sherman

Defendant

Said Bin Saleh Sherman

Defendant

Hussein Bin Saleh Sherman

Defendant

Omar Bin Saleh Sherman

Defendant

Moses Mwakio

Respondent

Mohamed Tsumo

Respondent

Clement Gitahi Wanjohi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the Contemnors were in contempt of court orders issued on 30th March 2011 and 29th February 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the court orders were properly served on the Contemnors.
  3. 3 Whether the acts complained of by the Applicants constituted a breach of the court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the orders allegedly breached were directed at the Plaintiffs, not the Contemnors, and that the evidence of service on the Contemnors was general and lacked specificity. The Applicants failed to distinguish between structures existing before the order and those allegedly erected in breach. The court was not satisfied that the Contemnors were properly served or that the acts complained of constituted a clear breach of the orders. As such, the Applicants did not meet the requisite standard of proof for contempt, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for contempt is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.