[2022] KEELC 13692 (KLR)
The court found that the defendants, particularly the 1st defendant, had not made any attempt to comply with the court orders issued on May 20, 2019, which were based on a consent judgment entered on December 4, 2018. The reasons advanced by the 1st defendant in response to the notice to show cause were deemed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 13692 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Kabugi Karanja; Defendant: Benson Mugo Mukunya; Defendant: Joyce Wambui Langat; Defendant: Milka Kanene Ndung’u
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1289 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Contempt of Court
- Outcome
- 1st defendant found guilty of contempt of court; sentencing to follow.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Consent Judgment, Enforcement of Court Orders, Environment and Land Court Act
- 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
Joseph Kabugi Karanja
Plaintiff
Benson Mugo Mukunya
Defendant
Joyce Wambui Langat
Defendant
Milka Kanene Ndung’u
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice to Show Cause for Contempt of Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants have complied with the court orders issued on May 20, 2019 as adopted from the consent judgment of December 4, 2018.
- 2 Whether the reasons advanced by the 1st defendant in response to the notice to show cause are merited.
- 3 Whether the 1st defendant is guilty of contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the defendants, particularly the 1st defendant, had not made any attempt to comply with the court orders issued on May 20, 2019, which were based on a consent judgment entered on December 4, 2018. The reasons advanced by the 1st defendant in response to the notice to show cause were deemed unmerited, as they merely sought to re-litigate matters already determined in the ruling of November 10, 2021. The court emphasized the binding nature of court orders and the obligation to comply unless and until such orders are discharged. Since the consent order and the subsequent ruling had not been discharged or appealed, the court held the 1st defendant guilty of contempt of...
Court Disposition
1st defendant found guilty of contempt of court; sentencing to follow.
Orders
- The 1st defendant is found guilty of contempt of court.
- Sentencing to be conducted in accordance with section 30 of the Environment and Land Court Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
Karanja v Mukunya & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 1289 of 2014) [2022] KEELC 13692 (KLR) (18 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 13692 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 1289 of 2014
LN Mbugua, J
October 18, 2022
Between
Joseph Kabugi Karanja
Plaintiff
and
Benson Mugo Mukunya
1st Defendant
Joyce Wambui Langat
2nd Defendant
Milka Kanene Ndung’u
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. This ruling relates to the notice to show cause as to why the defendants should not be punished for contempt of court. The defendants herein were found to be in contempt of court orders of May 20, 2019 vide a ruling delivered by this court on November 10, 2021. No appeal (not any I know of ) was ever lodged against the said ruling, while the application for review of the said ruling was dismissed on February 23, 2022.
2. The affidavit filed by the 1st respondent dated June 2, 2022 in response to the notice to show cause is an attempt to re-litigate the issues raised in the ruling of November 10, 2021. I find that there is not the slightest move to comply with the orders given on May 20, 2019 in which the parties had entered into a consent judgment of December 4, 2018. Thus the said orders of May 20, 2019 remain in force to date.
3. In the case ofHadkinson vs Hadkinsan [1952] All ER their Lordship Justices Somervell and Romer held that:“It was the unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order had been made by court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order(s) was discharged.”
4. The consent order and the subsequent ruling of November 10, 2021 have never been discharged. In the circumstances I find that the reasons given by the 1st defendant in response to the notice to show cause are not merited. The 1st defendant is found guilty of contempt and shall be sentenced accordingly in tandem with the provisions of section 30 of the Environment and Land Court Act.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-Ongeri for the PlaintiffWangai for 1st Defendant1st Defendant presentSala holding brief for Mr. Muriithi for the 1st Interested PartyAgwata for 2nd & 3rd Interested PartiesCourt assistant: Eddel