[2020] KEELC 722 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 722 (KLR)

The court found that the order allegedly disobeyed described a different parcel of land than that in the substantive application, creating ambiguity. Service of the order on the 1st and 4th Respondents was effected through watchmen, who were not shown to have authority to receive service as required by Order 5 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no evidence that the 5th Respondent was served or disobeyed the order. The Petitioners failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the 1st, 4th, and 5th Respondents were properly served and willfully disobeyed the court order. Consequently, the application for contempt was without merit and was dismissed with costs to the 1st...

Citation
[2020] KEELC 722 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: David K. Kaitany & 18 Others (Representatives of Kabomoti Area Residents and/or Community); Respondent: The Head Teacher/Secretary, The School Management Committee, Ng’olong Primary School; Respondent: The County Director of Education, Baringo County; Respondent: The Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Baringo County; Respondent: Mr. Wilson Kapkwang, Assistant Chief, Moloi Sub-Location Orokwo Location, Baringo County; Respondent: The Member of the County Assembly (MCA), Kabarnet Ward, Baringo County; Respondent: The County Land Registrar, Baringo County; Respondent: The County Surveyor, Baringo County; Respondent: The County Lands Officer, Baringo County; Respondent: The County Government of Baringo; Respondent: The National Land Commission; Respondent: The Hon. The Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
13 November 2020
Case Number
Petition 13 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 2nd November 2018
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
SM Kibunja
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Service of Process, Injunctive Relief, Land Disputes
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Service of Process Injunctive Relief Land Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

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

Parties

David K. Kaitany & 18 Others (Representatives of Kabomoti Area Residents and/or Community)

Applicant

The Head Teacher/Secretary, The School Management Committee, Ng’olong Primary School

Respondent

The County Director of Education, Baringo County

Respondent

The Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Baringo County

Respondent

Mr. Wilson Kapkwang, Assistant Chief, Moloi Sub-Location Orokwo Location, Baringo County

Respondent

The Member of the County Assembly (MCA), Kabarnet Ward, Baringo County

Respondent

The County Land Registrar, Baringo County

Respondent

The County Surveyor, Baringo County

Respondent

The County Lands Officer, Baringo County

Respondent

The County Government of Baringo

Respondent

The National Land Commission

Respondent

The Hon. The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 2nd November 2018

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st, 4th and 5th Respondents disobeyed the court order as alleged.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order allegedly disobeyed described a different parcel of land than that in the substantive application, creating ambiguity. Service of the order on the 1st and 4th Respondents was effected through watchmen, who were not shown to have authority to receive service as required by Order 5 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. There was no evidence that the 5th Respondent was served or disobeyed the order. The Petitioners failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the 1st, 4th, and 5th Respondents were properly served and willfully disobeyed the court order. Consequently, the application for contempt was without merit and was dismissed with costs to the 1st...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Petitioners' Motion dated 2nd November 2018 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st Respondent.