[2015] KEELC 495 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence to show the Plaintiffs were in contempt of the court order issued on 5th September 2014. The order in question restrained the Defendant from alienating, transferring, or charging the suit property and did not impose any positive or negative obligation on the Plaintiffs. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 495 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kazungu Fondo Shutu; Plaintiff: Habel Kahindi Charo; Defendant: Japhet Noti Charo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 172 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Injunctive Orders, Status Quo Orders, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Kazungu Fondo Shutu
Plaintiff
Habel Kahindi Charo
Plaintiff
Japhet Noti Charo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Plaintiffs are in contempt of court orders issued on 5th September 2014.
- 2 Whether there is evidence that the Plaintiffs have altered the status quo as ordered by the court.
- 3 Whether the orders sought by the Defendant are enforceable against the Plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence to show the Plaintiffs were in contempt of the court order issued on 5th September 2014. The order in question restrained the Defendant from alienating, transferring, or charging the suit property and did not impose any positive or negative obligation on the Plaintiffs. The court further noted that the status quo order was meant to maintain the existing situation until the hearing of the suit, and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Plaintiffs had altered the status quo or violated any enforceable order. Consequently, the application for contempt was dismissed as there was no basis for the orders sought against the Plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Application dated 11th September 2014 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO. 172 OF 2013
1. KAZUNGU FONDO SHUTU
2. HABEL KAHINDI CHARO......................................................PLAINTIFFS
=VERSUS=
JAPHET NOTI CHARO..............................................................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The current Application was filed by the Defendant and it is dated 11th September, 2014. In the Application, the Defendant is seeking for the following orders:
(a) That the Plaintiffs/Respondents be summoned to appear before court and show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for a period not exceeding six months for being in contempt of court by virtue of the ruling and order of the 5th day of September 2014.
(b) That an order be issued to remove all structures the Plaintiffs/Respondents have forcefully started to erect on the suit property.
(c) That costs of this application be provided for.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that he Plaintiffs/Respondents have failed to understand the Ruling delivered on 5th September 2014; that the Plaintiffs are now using the Ruling of 5th September 2014 as an eviction order when it is not the case and that the Plaintiffs have now cut down the Defendant's fence on the suit property.
3. In their Replying Affidavit, the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent deponed that they have not defied the court orders; that they are in occupation of 1 ½ acres of the suit property as per the agreement they entered into with the Defendant; that the injunction was as against the Defendant/Applicant and not them and that the issue of contempt cannot arise.
4. The advocates for the parties filed their submissions in which they reiterated their client's cases.
5. The Plaintiffs in this case moved the court by way of an Application dated 30th September 2013 seeking for an order of injunction restraining the Defendant from entering into and interfering with quiet possession of their share in land comprised in plot C1084, Malindi.
6. On 5th September 2014, I delivered my Ruling in which I restrained the Defendant/Applicant from alienating, transferring or charging the suit property.
7. The effect of my order was that the Defendant was not to sell Plot C10840 in which the Plaintiffs are claiming that they are entitled to approximately 1 ½ acres.
8. In my Ruling, I stated that whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to 1 ½ acres of the suit land or not can only be determined during the hearing of the suit. At paragraph 18 of the said Ruling, I stated as follows:
“However, pending the hearing of the suit, and considering that the Defendant has not denied that he signed the two agreements, the interests of justice demand that the status quo pertaining now should be maintained.....”
9. From the photographs annexed on the Affidavit, it would be difficult for the court to know on which portion of the suit property the Plaintiffs are putting up structures.
10. There is no evidence before me to show that the Plaintiffs are in contempt of the order of this court or that the status quo contemplated by the court in the Ruling of 5th September 2014 has been altered by the Plaintiffs/Respondents. In a nutshell, there is no order, whether positive or negative, that is enforceable as against the alleged contemnors.
11. For those reasons, I dismiss the Application dated 11th September 2014 with costs.
Dated and delivered in Malindi this 15th day of May,2015.
O. A. Angote
Judge