[2018] KEELC 3804 (KLR)
The court found that while a restraining order had been issued against the defendant, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent had disobeyed the order. Specifically, there was no evidence presented to show that the respondent, accompanied by police officers, entered the suit...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3804 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Leshan Ole Letoluo; Defendant: Haba Haba Investment Ltd; Defendant: James Ochengo Onduso; Defendant: Serah Njoki Munge; Defendant: Sankale Ole Otuni; Defendant: Land Registrar Narok
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 553 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Interlocutory Injunctions, 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
Leshan Ole Letoluo
Plaintiff
Haba Haba Investment Ltd
Defendant
James Ochengo Onduso
Defendant
Serah Njoki Munge
Defendant
Sankale Ole Otuni
Defendant
Land Registrar Narok
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 4th defendant disobeyed lawful court orders restraining dealings with the suit land.
- 2 Whether the applicant proved the ingredients of contempt of court against the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that while a restraining order had been issued against the defendant, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the respondent had disobeyed the order. Specifically, there was no evidence presented to show that the respondent, accompanied by police officers, entered the suit land and placed beacons as alleged. The applicant did not specify which police station the officers purportedly came from, nor did he provide corroborative material. The burden of proof in contempt proceedings lies with the applicant, and in the absence of concrete evidence, the court could not find the respondent in contempt. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 13th December, 2017 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK
ELC CAUSE NO. 553 OF 2017
LESHAN OLE LETOLUO...................................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
HABA HABA INVESTMENT LTD...........1ST DEFENDANT
JAMES OCHENGO ONDUSO..................2ND DEFENDANT
SERAH NJOKI MUNGE............................3RD DEFENDANT
SANKALE OLE OTUNI............................4TH DEFENDANT
LAND REGISTRAR NAROK...................5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
The Application before me is the Plaintiff’s/Applicant’s application dated 13th December, 2017 brought under order 40 Rule 1, 2 and 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders that the court finds the 4th Defendant/Respondent has contravened restraining orders issued by the court on 21st September, 2017 that the 4th Respondent ceases any dealings with land parcel No CIS MARA ILMASHARIANI-MORIJO/1189 TO 1190 and that in the alternative the Respondent be put in Jail for contravening the aforesaid orders.
The Application was supported by the affidavit of Leshan Ole letoluo where he averred and basically expounded on the grounds on which the application was based.
The Respondent opposed the application and filed a replying affidavit.
The Respondent alleged that he was the owner of the suit land and that he neither trespassed on the land and / encroached on the same and no formal complaint was filed against him. He further alleged that contrary to the application averment the suit land was sub-divided prior to the filing of the suit herein and he has been in occupation and possession of the land.
The respondent further contends that he holds a valid title which is a prima facie evidence and thus is protected under the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya. He also stated that he respects the authority and the dignity of the court and has not disobeyed any order.
I have read the application and considered the submissions made by counsel for the applicant and respondent. The issue before me is whether the respondent had disobeyed a lawful order of the court as alleged by the applicant.
It is not disputed by the parties that this court had on 21st September, 2017 restrained the defendant from entering, cultivating and trespassing on the suit parcel of land. What is in contention is whether the Respondent knows that such an order was substantially acted contrary to the say.
From the Application and supporting affidavit it is alleged that the said disobedience is evident when the respondent in company of police officers visited the suit land and placed beacons thereon. No evidence of this fact has been placed before me to show that indeed police officers as the respondent visited the land. The applicant has not stated what police station the said officers came from.
For an application of contempt to succeed, the applicant must proof all the ingredients that constitute the offence of contempt and in view of the above I find that the application lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
Dated, SignedandDeliveredin open court atNAROKon this 10thday ofApril, 2018
Mohammed Noor Kullow
Judge
10/4/18
In the presence of:-
CA:Kimiriny
Ms Cheptoo holding brief for Muigai for the Plaintiff
Mr. Kamwaro for 4th defendant
Mr. Kamwaro holding brief for Mr Githui for 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents