[2018] KEELC 2593 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents were aware of the court orders issued in the judgment of 15th November, 2017, and had willfully disobeyed them by remaining on the suit land. The mitigation advanced by the respondents amounted to an admission of continued occupation in defiance of the orders, with no plausible...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2593 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: George Mudia; Defendant: Celeste Njue Erenkanya; Respondent: Peter Njagi Njue; Respondent: Lawrence Kiraithe; Respondent: Kenneth Gitonga; Respondent: Mutembei Njue
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 10 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Contempt Application / Sentencing After Finding of Contempt
- Outcome
- Respondents found guilty of contempt; fines imposed; warrant of arrest issued for absent respondent.
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Judgments, Eviction Orders
- 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
George Mudia
Plaintiff
Celeste Njue Erenkanya
Defendant
Peter Njagi Njue
Respondent
Lawrence Kiraithe
Respondent
Kenneth Gitonga
Respondent
Mutembei Njue
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Sentencing After Finding of Contempt
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents should be punished for contempt of court orders issued in the judgment delivered on 15th November, 2017.
- 2 Whether the respondents have provided sufficient mitigation to avoid punishment for contempt.
- 3 What orders should be made regarding the absent respondent, Mutembei Njue.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents were aware of the court orders issued in the judgment of 15th November, 2017, and had willfully disobeyed them by remaining on the suit land. The mitigation advanced by the respondents amounted to an admission of continued occupation in defiance of the orders, with no plausible justification provided. The absence of one respondent, Mutembei Njue, was unexplained. The court determined that punishment was necessary to uphold the authority of the court and the rule of law. Accordingly, the court imposed fines on the present respondents and issued a warrant of arrest for the absent respondent to ensure compliance and deterrence.
Court Disposition
Respondents found guilty of contempt; fines imposed; warrant of arrest issued for absent respondent.
Orders
- Peter Njagi Njue and Kenneth Gitonga are each to pay a fine of Kshs. 20,000 or serve 2 months imprisonment in default.
- A warrant of arrest is to issue against Mutembei Njue to be brought before the court for mitigation and sentencing, to be effected by the O.C.S Ntumu Police station.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC NO. 10 OF 2013
GEORGE MUDIA ..................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CELESTE NJUE ERENKANYA.......................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the application dated 15th March, 2018 whereby the plaintiff/applicant is seeking for orders to the effect that Peter Njagi Njue, Lawrence Kiraithe, Kenneth Gitonga and Mutembei Njue be punished by the court for contempt of the court orders in respect of the judgment delivered on 15th November, 2017.
2. The aforementioned application was partially dealt with vide the court’s ruling of 16th May, 2018 whereby the court found the person’s mentioned as respondents guilty of contempt of court’s orders. The matter was coming up today for mitigation and sentencing. The respondents are still seeking for more time to look for their advocate.
3. I decline to give the respondents any more time because I had earlier on given them 10 minutes to look for their advocates and I have now ended up giving them 30 minutes. It is noted that the respondents have not told this court as to where their advocate is. However despite the foregoing it is noted that Mr. Kaumbi counsel for the respondents did enter the court room and has been allowed to participate in the proceedings.
4. The mitigation advanced by the respondents through their advocate is that the respondents ought to be granted few more days to vacate the land.
5. The court will proceed to give directions on sentencing as well as further directions regarding the respondent known as Mutembei Njue who is absent.
Committal proceedings
6. The first step the court undertakes is to bring to the attention of the respondents the charges they are facing.
7. The court proceeds to briefly read the Judgment of the court as well as the court’s ruling of 21. 2.2018 and the court’s ruling of 16. 5.2018. The proceedings are conducted in Kimeru-English interpretation with Janet being the court assistant.
8. I have considered the mitigation advanced by counsel for the respondents. The same amounts to an admission that the respondents are still on the suit land. No plausible explanation has been advanced as to why the respondents have taken it upon themselves to defy the court order. Further no plausible explanation has been advanced as to why the person known as Mutembei Njue has declined to appear personally before this court. The court has also been informed by the respondent known as Peter Njagi that the person known as Lawrence Kiraithe is now dead.
9. In the circumstances, I proceed to give the following orders;
(i) Peter Njagi Njue and Kenneth Gitonga are hereby directed to pay a fine of Kshs. 20,000 each in default to serve 2 months imprisonment.
(ii) A warrant of arrest is to issue against Mutembei Njue so as to be brought before this court for mitigation and sentencing. The said warrant of arrest to be effected by the O.C.S Ntumu Police station.
(iii) Mention on 23rd May, 2018 for further directions.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2018
HON. L. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE