[2016] KEHC 6380 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 6380 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove contempt of court against the respondents. There was no evidence that the respondents were personally served with the court order and penal notice as required by law. Service was effected on the respondents' wives without court sanction for substituted service....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 6380 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Isaac Anyula Khatete; Defendant: Wilson Francis Onjunju; Defendant: Chrispinus Odhiambo Oluoch; Defendant: The Land Registrar Kakamega; Defendant: The District Surveyor
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 108 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to respondents
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Contempt of Court, Service of Court Orders, Boundary Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Injunctive Relief Contempt of Court Service of Court Orders Boundary 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

Isaac Anyula Khatete

Plaintiff

Wilson Francis Onjunju

Defendant

Chrispinus Odhiambo Oluoch

Defendant

The Land Registrar Kakamega

Defendant

The District Surveyor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondents disobeyed the court order issued on 14/10/2015.
  2. 2 Whether proper service of the court order and penal notice was effected on the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant proved contempt of court by the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove contempt of court against the respondents. There was no evidence that the respondents were personally served with the court order and penal notice as required by law. Service was effected on the respondents' wives without court sanction for substituted service. Additionally, the applicant did not provide evidence that the respondents destroyed the boundary features after the issuance of the court order. The absence of personal service and penal notice meant that the respondents could not be held in contempt. Consequently, the application for contempt was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to respondents

Orders

  • The application dated 6/11/2015 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.