[2017] KEELC 1823 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to prove that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had disobeyed the court order of 22nd August, 2011. The only evidence presented was a photograph of stones on the land, which did not indicate when or by whom it was taken. There was no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEELC 1823 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Patrick Daudi Kimuli; Defendant: Katelembo Athiani Farmers & Ranching Co. Ltd; Defendant: Juliana Matee Mataki; Defendant: Martin Kyalo Maliki; Defendant: Machakos District Land Registrar; Defendant: Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 200 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders, Injunctive Relief, Evidence Requirements
- 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
Patrick Daudi Kimuli
Plaintiff
Katelembo Athiani Farmers & Ranching Co. Ltd
Defendant
Juliana Matee Mataki
Defendant
Martin Kyalo Maliki
Defendant
Machakos District Land Registrar
Defendant
Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd and 3rd Defendants disobeyed the court order of 22nd August, 2011 regarding the status quo of the suit land.
- 2 Whether there is sufficient evidence to hold the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to prove that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants had disobeyed the court order of 22nd August, 2011. The only evidence presented was a photograph of stones on the land, which did not indicate when or by whom it was taken. There was no direct evidence linking the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to the alleged acts of contempt on 11th September, 2014. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence of disobedience, the court could not find the Defendants in contempt. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 15th September, 2014 is dismissed with costs to the Defendants.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 200 OF 2011
PATRICK DAUDI KIMULI...............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KATELEMBO ATHIANI FARMERS &
RANCHING CO. LTD............................................1ST DEFENDANT
JULIANA MATEE MATAKI..................................2ND DEFENDANT
MARTIN KYALO MALIKI....................................3RD DEFENDANT
MACHAKOS DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR....4TH DEFENDANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL .......................................5TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Notice of Motion dated 15th September, 2014, the Plaintiff is seeking for an order that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants be held in contempt of court and be committed to civil jail for a term of six(6) months for disobedience of the order of the court of 22nd August, 2011.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that on 22nd August, 2011, the court issued an order that the status quo to be maintained with respect to land known as Athi River/Athi River/Block 1/118; that the Defendants were present when the order was being made and that they have disobeyed the said order.
3. According to the Plaintiff’s Affidavit, on 11th September, 2014, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants continued to alter the suit land by bringing construction materials on the land; that the stones are still on the land and that the order of the court has been disobeyed.
4. I have perused the file and I have not come across a response from the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The 1st Defendant’s lawyer informed the court that he does not oppose the Application.
5. The Plaintiff’s advocate filed brief submissions which I have considered.
6. Although the Plaintiff has deponed that on 11th September, 2014, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants brought construction materials on the suit land, and that on the same day, a tractor was brought on the land and started digging it, there is no evidence of such acts happening to the suit land.
7. The only evidence exhibited by the Plaintiff in his Further Affidavit is a photograph showing some stones. However, the photograph does not indicate when it was taken and by who.
8. In the absence of evidence to support the allegation that indeed the 2nd and 3rd Defendants breached the order of this court on 11th September, 2014 or at all, I dismiss the Application dated 15th September, 2014 with costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE