[2015] KEELC 334 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 334 (KLR)

The court found that the 3rd and 4th Defendants were personally served with the court order of 2nd November 2010, which expressly maintained the status quo and restrained any sale or development of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Despite this, the 3rd Defendant, with the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELC 334 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Malindi Holdings and Estate Agents Limited; Defendant: Everlyn Luvundwa Masambaga; Defendant: Gideon Macharia; Defendant: Harrison Charo Shutu; Defendant: Kirimo Fondo Shutu; Defendant: Francis Lawrence Katana Fondo; Defendant: Charles Michael Shutu; Defendant: Rodgers Karisa NyaLe; Defendant: Eric Mwalimu Katana
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 96 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
Application allowed. 3rd and 4th Defendants found in contempt of court.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctive Orders, Status Quo Orders, Sale of Land, Breach of Court Order
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctive Orders Status Quo Orders Sale of Land Breach of Court Order

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malindi Holdings and Estate Agents Limited

Plaintiff

Everlyn Luvundwa Masambaga

Defendant

Gideon Macharia

Defendant

Harrison Charo Shutu

Defendant

Kirimo Fondo Shutu

Defendant

Francis Lawrence Katana Fondo

Defendant

Charles Michael Shutu

Defendant

Rodgers Karisa NyaLe

Defendant

Eric Mwalimu Katana

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants disobeyed the court order of 2nd November 2010 restraining sale of the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether the 3rd and 4th Defendants should be punished for contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 3rd and 4th Defendants were personally served with the court order of 2nd November 2010, which expressly maintained the status quo and restrained any sale or development of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Despite this, the 3rd Defendant, with the cooperation of the 4th Defendant, sold a portion of plot number 9297 to a third party, as evidenced by a sale agreement and corroborated by the purchaser's affidavit in related proceedings. The Defendants did not contest the Plaintiff's evidence or provide any justification for their actions. The court held that the Defendants' conduct constituted a clear breach of the court order and...

Court Disposition

Application allowed. 3rd and 4th Defendants found in contempt of court.

Orders

  • A warrant of arrest is issued to arrest the 3rd Defendant, Harrison Charo Shutu, and the 4th Defendant, Kirimo Fondo Shutu, to show cause why they should not be punished.
  • The OCPD, Malindi, is directed to enforce this order.