[2019] KEHC 11244 (KLR)
The court found that the respondents, as trustees, had a fiduciary duty to transfer 10 acres each to the applicants as previously ordered. Their repeated explanations regarding the sale of part of the land and alleged family agreements had already been considered and rejected by the court. The respondents' failure...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 11244 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Elizabeth Naisoi Soikan; Applicant: Fridah Mellau Soikan; Respondent: Paul Salau Ntiyoine; Respondent: Jeremiah Sironet Ntiyoine
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2548 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Contempt of Court Orders
- Outcome
- Respondents found guilty of contempt of court; monetary penalty imposed; obligation to transfer land remains.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Trusteeship Breach, Estate Distribution, Fiduciary Duties
- 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
Elizabeth Naisoi Soikan
Applicant
Fridah Mellau Soikan
Applicant
Paul Salau Ntiyoine
Respondent
Jeremiah Sironet Ntiyoine
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Contempt of Court Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for failing to transfer 10 acres each to the applicants as previously ordered.
- 2 Whether the respondents' explanations and requests for indulgence justify non-compliance with the court order.
- 3 What sanctions are appropriate for the respondents' contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents, as trustees, had a fiduciary duty to transfer 10 acres each to the applicants as previously ordered. Their repeated explanations regarding the sale of part of the land and alleged family agreements had already been considered and rejected by the court. The respondents' failure to comply with the court's orders constituted contempt of court. The court emphasized that obedience to court orders is fundamental to the rule of law and the administration of justice. As such, the respondents were found guilty of contempt and sanctioned accordingly, without prejudice to their continuing obligation to transfer the land as previously ordered.
Court Disposition
Respondents found guilty of contempt of court; monetary penalty imposed; obligation to transfer land remains.
Orders
- Each respondent shall pay Kshs.200,000 in default 6 months in jail.
- Respondents remain liable to each give 10 acres of land to the respective applicant as previously ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 2548 OF 2000
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF NDIYEINE OLE SIMEL - (DECEASED)
ELIZABETH NAISOI SOIKAN.....................1ST APPLICANT
FRIDAH MELLAU SOIKAN.........................2ND APPLICANT
VERSUS
PAUL SALAU NTIYOINE..........................1ST RESPONDENT
JEREMIAH SIRONET NTIYOINE..........2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. On 28th November 2018 this court found the respondents guilty of contempt of court orders. The orders were that the 1st respondent immediately transfers 10 acres to the 1st applicant and the 2nd respondent immediately transfers 10 acres to the 2nd applicant. These are parcels each respondent was registered to hold in trust for the respective applicant. When the trust was terminated the respondents failed to effect the transfer.
2. By way of show cause, the respondents say they can make available only 10 acres; that 6 acres was sold by the applicants’ father before he died. That leaves 4 acres. They stated that all the beneficiaries of the deceased Ndiyeine Ole Simel had agreed that they sell the 4 acres and the proceeds used to develop some rental property to be utilised by all, including the applicants who had so far received Kshs.4. 5 million.
3. It is notable that what the respondents are saying is what they have said since 2016 when this matter came up. Their claims have already been discounted.
4. Mr Kabira for the respondents asked the court to indulge his clients, to consider that they educated the applicants and that to ensure that family harmony is enhanced. I have considered these.
5. However, it is a sad and unfortunate affair for the respondents to fail to give the applicants what they undertook to do as trustees. They were in a fiduciary relationship which they abused. It is a serious matter when a party refuses to obey a court order. The purpose of the law of contempt is to protect the machinery of justice and the interests of the public. Judicial authority is exercised through judgments, rulings, orders and decrees. This authority is not only for the parties involved in a particular case but also for the entire public. Public confidence in court processes is enhanced, and the rule of law preserved, when court orders are respected and obeyed.
6. I direct that each respondent shall pay Kshs.200,000/= (Two Hundred Thousand Shillings) in default 6 months in jail.
7. This punishment does not take away the respondents’ liability to each give 10 acres of land as ordered before.
8. Each respondent has the right to appeal within 28 days.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 29TH APRIL 2019.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE