[2020] KEELC 3736 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3736 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st and 2nd Defendants, having been aware of the injunctive orders restraining them from dealing with the suit properties, willfully and intentionally proceeded to transfer and sub-divide the properties during the pendency of those orders. The Defendants' claim that the transfer process was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3736 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Wambua Mulwa; Plaintiff: Anderson Muinde Mulwa; Defendant: John Mulwa Nzioki; Defendant: Jackson Muisyo Mulwa; Defendant: Nicholas Muthama Mulwa; Defendant: Benard Mutinda Mulwa; Defendant: Johnson Mbenza Mulwa
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 73 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
Application allowed; 1st and 2nd Defendants found in contempt of court orders.
Judges
OA Angote
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctive Orders, Land Transfer Disputes, Service of Court Orders
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctive Orders Land Transfer Disputes Service of Court Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wambua Mulwa

Plaintiff

Anderson Muinde Mulwa

Plaintiff

John Mulwa Nzioki

Defendant

Jackson Muisyo Mulwa

Defendant

Nicholas Muthama Mulwa

Defendant

Benard Mutinda Mulwa

Defendant

Johnson Mbenza Mulwa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants were in contempt of court orders restraining them from dealing with the suit properties.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants had knowledge of the court orders and willfully disobeyed them.
  3. 3 Whether the transfers and sub-divisions of the suit properties occurred during the pendency of valid court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st and 2nd Defendants, having been aware of the injunctive orders restraining them from dealing with the suit properties, willfully and intentionally proceeded to transfer and sub-divide the properties during the pendency of those orders. The Defendants' claim that the transfer process was initiated before the orders was not substantiated with evidence. The court emphasized that knowledge of the order, not necessarily personal service, is sufficient for contempt, and that court orders must be obeyed until discharged. The Defendants' actions amounted to contempt of court, warranting punishment.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; 1st and 2nd Defendants found in contempt of court orders.

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants are in contempt of the orders of this court of 17th April, 2018 and issued on 7th May, 2018.
  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants to mitigate before a sentence is issued by the court.