[2014] KEHC 6276 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent and his agents, including his son, were bound by the restraining order issued on 23/12/2011, which prohibited them from utilizing the suit land. The harvesting and delivery of cane to Mumias Sugar Company Limited after the issuance of the order constituted a violation of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 6276 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Cleophas Dindi; Respondent: Michael Ojay Otieno
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 123 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- application granted
- Judges
- SJ Chitembwe
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Land Use Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cleophas Dindi
Plaintiff
Michael Ojay Otieno
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proceeds from the harvested sugar cane on plot SOUTH WANGA/BUKAYA/1012 should be deposited in court pending the determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the respondent or his agents disobeyed a court order restraining them from utilizing the suit land.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent and his agents, including his son, were bound by the restraining order issued on 23/12/2011, which prohibited them from utilizing the suit land. The harvesting and delivery of cane to Mumias Sugar Company Limited after the issuance of the order constituted a violation of the court's directive. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the cane belonged to his son, holding that allowing such a claim would effectively set aside the court order and undermine its authority. Consequently, the court held that the application to have the proceeds from the harvested cane deposited in court was merited and granted the orders as prayed.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- The proceeds from the harvested cane on plot SOUTH WANGA/BUKAYA/1012 shall be deposited in court pending the final determination of the main suit.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT AT KAKAMEGA
CIVIL CASE NO: 123 OF 2009
CLEOPHAS DINDI.............................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MICHAEL OJAY OTIENO............................................RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
The application dated 17/9/2013 seeks to have the proceeds of cane harvested from plot number SOUTH WANGA/BUKAYA/1012 be deposited in court pending the final determination of the main suit. Mr. Amasakha, Counsel for the applicant relied on the supporting affidavit and submitted that there was a court order issued on 15/12/2011 restraining the respondent from utilizing the suit land but the order was ignored.
On his part, the respondent filed a replying affidavit sworn on 5th November, 2013. The respondent maintains that the cane that was planted on the suit land belongs to his son Thomas Odino Dindi. His son has been on the said suit land for more than 9 years. The respondent further contends that he has never signed any sugar cane contract with Mumias Sugar Company.
The court record shows that on 23/12/2011, the court issued an order restraining the respondent, his agents, or assignees from further cultivating or dealing with the suit land pending inter parties hearing of the application dated 14/12/2011. I take notice of the fact that sugar cane in the western region takes about two years to mature. The applicant contends that on 3rd and 13th August, 2013, the plaintiff or his agents harvested cane and delivered it to Mumias Sugar Company Limited. The cane must have been planted either shortly before the order was issued or shortly before the application was filed.
The respondent maintains that the cane belongs to his son who has been using the land for over nine (9) years. That could be so but the court restrained the respondent and his agents or servants who should include his sons from utilizing the suit land. The court order was disobeyed and the court cannot simply agree to the claim that the plaintiff’s son has been planting cane on the land for a long time. That would be tantamount to setting aside the court order.
I do find that the application dated 17/9/2013 is merited and the same is granted as prayed. The cane proceeds shall be deposited in court as prayed. Costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and Delivered at Kakamega this 20th day of March 2014.
SAID J. CHITEMBWE
JUDGE