[2020] KEELC 781 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 781 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to annex or produce the impugned court order allegedly breached by the 1st Defendant. The order in question was not issued in the present suit but in a different suit (Malindi High Court Civil Suit No. 2 of 2012), which had been withdrawn a year prior to the alleged...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 781 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Bishop Mark Kubai Kariuki; Plaintiff: Bishop J.B Masinde; Plaintiff: Bishop William K. Tuimising; Plaintiff: Reverend Samuel Gakuo; Plaintiff: Reverend George Mulinge Mwaula; Plaintiff: Reverend Paul Mutunga (suing on behalf of the Deliverance Church of Kenya); Defendant: Japhet Noti Charo; Defendant: County Government of Kilifi; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 197 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders, Execution of Court Orders, Withdrawal of Suit
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Status Quo Orders Execution of Court Orders Withdrawal of Suit

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bishop Mark Kubai Kariuki

Plaintiff

Bishop J.B Masinde

Plaintiff

Bishop William K. Tuimising

Plaintiff

Reverend Samuel Gakuo

Plaintiff

Reverend George Mulinge Mwaula

Plaintiff

Reverend Paul Mutunga (suing on behalf of the Deliverance Church of Kenya)

Plaintiff

Japhet Noti Charo

Defendant

County Government of Kilifi

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant was in contempt of court orders issued on 16th June 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to mandatory orders for reconstruction of demolished structures.
  3. 3 Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to permanent injunctive relief against the 1st Defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to annex or produce the impugned court order allegedly breached by the 1st Defendant. The order in question was not issued in the present suit but in a different suit (Malindi High Court Civil Suit No. 2 of 2012), which had been withdrawn a year prior to the alleged contempt. The court further found that the demolition of the structures was carried out pursuant to a lawful order issued in Malindi CMCC Land Case No. 5 of 2018, after the Plaintiffs were served but failed to defend the suit. As such, there was no valid or subsisting order in force at the time of the alleged contempt, and the Plaintiffs could not claim contempt for execution of a...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st Defendant/Respondent

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 24th June 2019 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st Defendant/Respondent.