[2019] KEELC 4517 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 4517 (KLR)

The court found that the Plaintiff had not provided evidence that the Defendants had been furnished with documents delineating the extent of the 95,000 acres leased to the Plaintiff. Without such evidence, the Defendants could not be said to have knowingly disobeyed the court orders of 7th November 2016. The court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 4517 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Fresco Bushland (K) Limited; Defendant: Warsame Mohamed Issaak; Defendant: Mohamed Yusuf Horar; Defendant: Mohamed Ali Mahat; Defendant: Naste Daud; Defendant: Agricultural Development Corporation
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 5 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Enforcement and Contempt Applications
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st to 4th defendants
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctions Contempt of Court Enforcement of Court Orders Land Disputes

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

Fresco Bushland (K) Limited

Plaintiff

Warsame Mohamed Issaak

Defendant

Mohamed Yusuf Horar

Defendant

Mohamed Ali Mahat

Defendant

Naste Daud

Defendant

Agricultural Development Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Enforcement and Contempt Applications

  1. 1 Whether the 1st to 4th Defendants disobeyed the court orders issued on 7th November 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's application for enforcement and contempt was premature and merited.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants had been properly furnished with documents showing the extent of the Plaintiff's 95,000 acres.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Plaintiff had not provided evidence that the Defendants had been furnished with documents delineating the extent of the 95,000 acres leased to the Plaintiff. Without such evidence, the Defendants could not be said to have knowingly disobeyed the court orders of 7th November 2016. The court held that the application for enforcement and contempt was premature and lacked merit, as the necessary particulars for compliance had not been provided to the Defendants. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the 1st to 4th Defendants.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st to 4th defendants

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's application dated 26th February 2018 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the 1st to 4th Defendants.