[2021] KEELC 3628 (KLR)

[2021] KEELC 3628 (KLR)

The court found that the respondent was aware of the tribunal's orders requiring removal of temporary structures from LR No 28177 but failed to comply. The respondent's explanation that only permanent structures existed did not address the applicant's claim or justify non-compliance. The orders had not been set...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELC 3628 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Peter Kamau Ruhangi; Respondent: John Ngugi Kabogo t/a Club Sidai Oleng
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application allowed; respondent found guilty of contempt
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Tribunal Orders, Removal of Structures, Landlord Tenant Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Tribunal Orders Removal of Structures Landlord Tenant 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Peter Kamau Ruhangi

Applicant

John Ngugi Kabogo t/a Club Sidai Oleng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is guilty of disobeying orders from the Business Premises Rent Tribunal.
  2. 2 Who should bear the costs of this application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was aware of the tribunal's orders requiring removal of temporary structures from LR No 28177 but failed to comply. The respondent's explanation that only permanent structures existed did not address the applicant's claim or justify non-compliance. The orders had not been set aside or appealed, and the respondent had sufficient time to comply. The court emphasized the uncompromising obligation to obey court orders and concluded that the respondent's failure was willful and deliberate, constituting contempt. Consequently, the respondent was found guilty of contempt and penalized accordingly.

Court Disposition

application allowed; respondent found guilty of contempt

Orders

  • The respondent is found guilty of disobeying the orders issued by the Business Premises Rent Tribunal on 28th May 2020.
  • The respondent is given sixty (60) days from the date of the ruling to purge the contempt.