[2019] KEELC 1576 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof required in contempt proceedings. The applicants did not provide specific details regarding the dates and locations of the alleged evictions, nor did they particularize the acts or omissions constituting contempt. The only evidence presented...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 1576 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Johnson Cheruiyot & 19 Others; Respondent: Director of Kenya Forest Services & 2 Others; Defendant: Kibet
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 85 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Contempt Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Eviction Proceedings, Burden of Proof, Service of Court 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
Johnson Cheruiyot & 19 Others
Applicant
Director of Kenya Forest Services & 2 Others
Respondent
Kibet
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents were in contempt of the court order issued on 14th October, 2014.
- 2 Whether the applicants provided sufficient evidence to prove contempt of court by the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof required in contempt proceedings. The applicants did not provide specific details regarding the dates and locations of the alleged evictions, nor did they particularize the acts or omissions constituting contempt. The only evidence presented was a newspaper cutting, which was insufficient to establish that the evictions occurred on the suit land or that the respondents were responsible. Consequently, the court held that the applicants had not proved their case to the required standard and dismissed the application for contempt.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 17th July, 2018 is dismissed with costs.
- The executive officer of the court is ordered not to accept any new applications by the 1st applicant unless with the express orders of the sitting judge.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAROK
ELC CAUSE NO. 85 OF 2017
FORMERLY NAKURU ELC NO. 282 OF 2014
JOHNSON CHERUIYOT & 19 OTHERS........................................APPLICANTS
-VERSUS-
DIRECTOR OF KENYA FORESTSERVICES & 2 OTHERS...RESPONDENTS
RULING
By a Notice of Motion dated 17th July, 2018 the Plaintiff/Applicant sought for orders to punish the Respondents herein and find them to be in contempt of court and commit them to jail for a period of six (6) months and the cost of the application be provided for. The application was based on the grounds that the Respondents are in disobedience of an order of the court that was issued on 14th October, 2014 and despite the existence of the aforesaid order they have gone ahead and evicted the applicants from the suit land and torched their houses and that the aforesaid conduct has put the dignity and authority of the court in disrepute.
The application was further supported by the Affidavit of the 1st Applicant in which he deponed that the Respondents were served with a court order that was issued on 14th October, 2014 and they accepted service and in disregard of the same the Respondents evicted the Applicants and their families from the land.
The Application was opposed by the 2nd Respondent by way of grounds of opposition and averred that the Application does not comply with the provisions of the Contempt of Court Act and that he was not served with the Application.
I have read the Application before me and the submissions filed by the 2nd Respondent. It is the Applicants contention that the Respondent had disobeyed the order of the court dated 14th October, 2014. From the pleadings the Applicants have not indicated the dates and the place in which the aforesaid evictions took place. The Applicant has not particularized the acts and omission required to satisfy the allegations and proof of the said contempt. No evidence other than newspaper cutting were shown and from the said newspaper cutting I can’t know exactly if the suit land is indeed where the reputed evictions are taking place and therefore it is my finding that the Applicants have not discharged the burden of proof to have the Respondents held in contempt of court.
In a nutshell I find that the Application dated 17th July, 2018 is not merited an I thus dismiss the same with costs.
I must note that the 1st Applicant has the tendency to file multiple applications in this matter and other matters he has in court without even giving the court courtesy to make a determination of previously filed application and in view of the above I order that the executive officer of the court not to accept any new applications by the 1st Applicant unless with the express orders of the sitting judge.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED in open court atNAROKon this 27thday of September, 2019
Mohammed Kullow
Judge
27/9/19
In the presence of: -
CA:Chuma/Kimiriny
Kibet for the 4th to 8th proposed intended defendant
N/A for the plaintiff
Mohammed Kullow
Judge
27/9/19