[2015] KEHC 5316 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 5316 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendant/Applicant was not entitled to the orders sought for committal or attachment for contempt because she admitted to erecting structures on the suit property without the sanction of the court, the County Government, or the registered proprietor (the Plaintiff). The court was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 5316 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Alka Roshanlal Hanspal (as administrator Ad Litem in the Estate of Kultar Singh Hanspal, Deceased); Defendant: Esther Muthoni Passaris
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1171 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Contempt
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Contempt of Court, Proprietary Rights, Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Contempt of Court Proprietary Rights Interlocutory Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alka Roshanlal Hanspal (as administrator Ad Litem in the Estate of Kultar Singh Hanspal, Deceased)

Plaintiff

Esther Muthoni Passaris

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Contempt

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the Plaintiff from dealing with the suit property pending the hearing of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff and her advocate are in contempt of court orders issued on 16th April 2011.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant is entitled to orders for committal to jail or attachment of property for alleged contempt.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant/Applicant was not entitled to the orders sought for committal or attachment for contempt because she admitted to erecting structures on the suit property without the sanction of the court, the County Government, or the registered proprietor (the Plaintiff). The court was not convinced that the Plaintiff had engaged in the acts alleged by the Defendant. There was already a subsisting injunction in favour of the Defendant preserving the suit property, and the issues raised would be better addressed at the full hearing of the suit. The application was therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs, and the Plaintiff was directed to fix the suit for hearing...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Defendant/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 12th November 2013 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.