[2019] KEELC 2635 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 2635 (KLR)

The court found that while it had erred in stating that no replying affidavit had been filed by the 2nd plaintiff, the affidavit that was filed merely raised technical issues and did not provide substantive evidence to rebut the allegations of contempt. In particular, there was no evidence presented to support the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 2635 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Florentina Kimoi Kimutai; Plaintiff: Joel Kiprotich Kimutai; Defendant: Francis Chuma
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 385 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review Contempt Finding
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Contempt of Court, Replying Affidavit, Error on Face of Record
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Review of Court Orders Contempt of Court Replying Affidavit Error on Face of Record

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Florentina Kimoi Kimutai

Plaintiff

Joel Kiprotich Kimutai

Plaintiff

Francis Chuma

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Ruling on Application to Review Contempt Finding

  1. 1 Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the existence of a replying affidavit by the 2nd plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient grounds exist to review or set aside the contempt finding against the 2nd plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while it had erred in stating that no replying affidavit had been filed by the 2nd plaintiff, the affidavit that was filed merely raised technical issues and did not provide substantive evidence to rebut the allegations of contempt. In particular, there was no evidence presented to support the 2nd plaintiff's claim that he was on duty at Moi Air Base at the material time. As a result, the court held that there were no sufficient grounds to review or set aside the contempt finding. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application for review is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.