[2019] KEELC 1170 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondents were personally served with the court order and penal notice as required by law. The affidavit of service did not establish personal service on the 1st respondent, and the circumstances regarding the 2nd respondent's service were unclear....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 1170 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lilian Muthoni Njoroge; Plaintiff: Elizabeth Wangari Njoroge; Defendant: Nelson Mathu Njoroge; Defendant: Elvis Muiruri Njoroge
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 428 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LC Komingoi
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Service of Process, Injunctive Orders, Occupation of Land
- 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
Lilian Muthoni Njoroge
Plaintiff
Elizabeth Wangari Njoroge
Plaintiff
Nelson Mathu Njoroge
Defendant
Elvis Muiruri Njoroge
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents were personally served with the court order of 20th December 2013 and penal notice.
- 2 Whether the respondents wilfully disobeyed the court order and are in contempt.
- 3 Whether the application for committal to prison for contempt should be granted.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondents were personally served with the court order and penal notice as required by law. The affidavit of service did not establish personal service on the 1st respondent, and the circumstances regarding the 2nd respondent's service were unclear. Without proof of personal service and wilful disobedience, the threshold for contempt was not met. The application for committal to prison was therefore dismissed for lack of merit.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application for committal to prison for contempt is dismissed.
- Costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
40 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT NAIROBI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO.428 OF 2012
(Consolidated with ELC NO. 202 OF 2012)
LILIAN MUTHONI NJOROGE...........................................1ST PLAINTIFF
ELIZABETH WANGARI NJOROGE.................................2ND PLAINTIFF
=VERSUS=
NELSON MATHU NJOROGE..........................................1ST DEFENDANT
ELVIS MUIRURI NJOROGE..........................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This is the notice of motion dated 15th April 2014 brought under order 40, rule 1, 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, and all the other enabling provisions of the law.
2. It seeks orders:-
(1) Spent.
(2) That an order of committal to prison be made against Rose Wambui and Lilian Muthoni for period of six months for disobedience of an order of this honourable court given on 20th December 2013.
(3) That the costs of this application be provided for.
3. The grounds are on the face of the application and are set out in paragraphs (a) to (i).
4. The application is supported by the affidavit of Nelson Mathu Njoroge, the plaintiff/applicant in ELC 202 of 2012 sworn on the 15th April 2014.
5. The application is opposed there is a replying affidavit sworn by Rose Wambui Wanjiru the 1st defendant/respondent in ELC 202 of 2012 sworn on the 18th June 2014.
6. On the 25th May 2016 the court directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions.
7. It is the applicant’s submissions that this court issued a valid court order on 20th December 2013 restraining the respondents from remaining on or continuing in occupation or possession of or from entering, interfering with, alienating, dealing in LR No. Muguga/Muguga/1647 until the suit is heard and determined. The respondents were duly served with the order together with a notice of partial consequences attached.
8. The respondents have blatantly failed to comply with the said order. He prays that the respondents be found guilty of contempt of court order and be punished accordingly.
9. It is the 1st respondent’s submissions that she was not served with the said court order. The court should first establish if they are trespassers. She prays that the application be dismissed.
10. I have considered the notice of motion and the affidavit in support. I have also considered the replying affidavit, the written submissions of counsel and the authorities cited. The issue for determination is whether the applicant has demonstrated that the respondent is in contempt of the court order of 20th December 2013 and ought to be punished.
11. The applicant states that the 1st defendant/respondent has disobeyed the court orders granted on 20th December 2013. He relies on the affidavit of service sworn by Francis Kimuyu Nzangi, process server sworn on the 15th April 2014.
12. I have gone through the said affidavit. In paragraph 5 he depones:-.
“that I proceeded to that woman and introduced myself and the purpose of my visit. I handed her copies of the said order and notice of penal consequences. She accepted the same but declined to sign in my copy saying that the matter is being handled by her counsel Ondabu Advocates. I proceeded to the said firm situated at Utalii house third floor and met Mr. Ondabu Advocate whom I tendered to him copies of the court order with penal notice annexed”.
13. From the foregoing it is clear that the 1st respondent Rose Wambui was not personally served with the copy of the court order and the penal notice.
14. With respect to Lilian Muthoni the process server said he served her at Githurai market but she declined to sign. I have gone through the pleadings and note that Rose Wambui alias Mary Wambui Wanjiru is the wife of the applicant herein. It is not clear under what circumstances she was supposed to leave the matrimonial home.
15. In her replying affidavit, the 1st respondent has explained why she was still on the suit property.
16. I find that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the court orders of 20th December 2013. I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed. The costs do abide the outcome of the main suit.
It is so ordered.
Dated, signed and delivered in Nairobi on this 17th day of October 2019.
..............................
L. KOMINGOI
JUDGE
In the presence of:-
Ms A. Ngige for the Plaintiff
Mr. Kenga for Njogu for the Defendant
Kajuju - Court Assistant