[2017] KEELC 3253 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3253 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant had sufficiently proved, through photographic evidence, that the 2nd defendant continued construction on the suit premises despite being served with injunctive orders to stop. However, the evidence presented regarding the 1st defendant's alleged brewing and selling of illicit brew...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3253 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Kenya Evangelical Lutheran Church; Respondent: Ngowa Mweru; Respondent: Mark Emanuel Gonzi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 161 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
Application partly allowed.
Judges
AA Omollo
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctive Orders, Demolition Orders, Proof of Service
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctive Orders Demolition Orders Proof of Service

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenya Evangelical Lutheran Church

Applicant

Ngowa Mweru

Respondent

Mark Emanuel Gonzi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the defendants disobeyed the court's injunctive orders issued on 12th July 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to prove contempt of court by the defendants.
  3. 3 Whether the court should order demolition of structures erected in breach of the court's orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had sufficiently proved, through photographic evidence, that the 2nd defendant continued construction on the suit premises despite being served with injunctive orders to stop. However, the evidence presented regarding the 1st defendant's alleged brewing and selling of illicit brew was insufficient, as the individuals in the photographs were not identified and no corroborating report from local authorities was provided. Consequently, the court granted the order for demolition of the structure erected by the 2nd defendant as shown in the supporting affidavit, but declined to grant the contempt order or further restraint against the 1st defendant due to...

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed.

Orders

  • The structure erected by the 2nd defendant, as shown in annexture KW 4, shall be demolished at the defendants' cost.
  • Prayer for contempt against the defendants is declined for lack of sufficient proof.