[2022] KEELC 2085 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 2085 (KLR)

The court found that the interlocutory injunction issued in 2000 had lapsed under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, as the suit had not been determined within twelve months and no sufficient reason was shown for extension. There was no evidence adduced to prove contempt by the respondents or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 2085 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Elinor Kadzo; Applicant: Thomas Karisa Ndurya; Applicant: Beatrice Chaurembo Ndurya; Respondent: Municipal Council of Malindi; Respondent: The Chairman Gede Primary School
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 220 of 1999
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctions, Land Boundaries, Enforcement of Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Land Boundaries Enforcement of 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elinor Kadzo

Applicant

Thomas Karisa Ndurya

Applicant

Beatrice Chaurembo Ndurya

Applicant

Municipal Council of Malindi

Respondent

The Chairman Gede Primary School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondents and affected parties are in contempt of the court orders issued on 12th January 2000.
  2. 2 Whether the interlocutory injunction granted in 2000 is still valid and enforceable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to the orders sought, including committal for contempt.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the interlocutory injunction issued in 2000 had lapsed under Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, as the suit had not been determined within twelve months and no sufficient reason was shown for extension. There was no evidence adduced to prove contempt by the respondents or affected parties. The court emphasized that injunctions are equitable remedies meant to preserve the subject matter for expeditious determination, not to oppress the opposing party. Since the applicants failed to demonstrate contempt or provide evidence of violation of the court order, the application for committal and other reliefs was dismissed. The court advised the plaintiffs to...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed for lack of merit.
  • Costs to be in the cause.