[2015] KEELC 363 (KLR)
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove personal service of the injunctive order on the Defendant, as the affidavit of service only showed service on Mr. Noor, the alleged construction manager, and not on the Defendant himself. The Defendant's denial of any interest in the suit property and lack of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] KEELC 363 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Piry Johnstone Muye; Defendant: Sharif Omar Mohamed
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 53 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Injunctive Orders, Contempt of Court, Service of Process
- 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
Piry Johnstone Muye
Plaintiff
Sharif Omar Mohamed
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Defendant was properly served with the injunctive order issued on 8th April 2015.
- 2 Whether the Defendant is in contempt of court for disobeying the injunctive order.
- 3 Whether the Defendant has any interest or involvement in the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Plaintiff failed to prove personal service of the injunctive order on the Defendant, as the affidavit of service only showed service on Mr. Noor, the alleged construction manager, and not on the Defendant himself. The Defendant's denial of any interest in the suit property and lack of knowledge of the order further undermined the Plaintiff's case. The court held that proper service is a prerequisite for contempt proceedings and, in its absence, the application could not succeed. The Plaintiff was advised to investigate further to identify the actual party responsible for the construction. Accordingly, the application for contempt was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Plaintiff's application dated 14th April 2015 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MALINDI
ELC CIVIL CASE NO. 53 OF 2015
PIRY JOHNSTONE MUYE...............................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SHARIF OMAR MOHAMED......................DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
Introduction:
What is before me is the Plaintiff's Application dated 14th April 2015 seeking for the following orders:-
(a) That the Defendant herein SHARIF OMAR MOHAMED be arrested and committed to prison for a period of six (6) months for disobeying the Orders issued by this Honourable Court on 8th April 2015.
(b) That this Honourable Court be pleased to make any other or such further orders as it may deem fit and just to grant.
(c) That costs of this Application be provided for.
The Application is premised on the ground that on 8th April 2015, the court issued injunctive orders against the Defendant restraining him from carrying out any further construction work on plot number 7733/III/MN; that the Defendant was served with the order and that the Defendant has flagrantly disobeyed the said order.
In his reply, the Respondent deponed that he has never been served with the orders of the court; that he is not the owner of L.R No. 7733/III/MN and that he is not carrying out any construction on the said land.
According to the Defendant, he is not even aware where the suit property is situated.
I have considered the submissions and authorities on record.
The Defendant has denied that he owns or has any interests in the suit property.
The Affidavit of Service annexed on the Plaintiff's Application shows that the order of this court issued on 8th April 2015 ex-parte was served on Mr. Noor who was on the suit property.
According to the said affidavit, Mr. Noor informed the process-server that he was the construction manager.
Considering that the order of injunction was issued ex-parte, it was incumbent on the process-server to personally serve the Defendant with the order of the court. Having served a Mr. Noor, this court finds that the service was not proper, not just for the purpose of the Application for contempt but the entire case.
The Defendant has also denied that he is the one who has authorized the construction of the building on the suit property. Indeed, the Defendant's claim is that he does not have any interest in the property. According to him, he does not even know where the suit property is situated. Consequently, he cannot stop the ongoing construction.
Did the Plaintiff sue the wrong person? It will be important for the Plaintiff to carry out more investigations to ascertain the person who has authorised the construction of the building in question on the suit property.
In the absence of evidence that the Defendant was personally served with the order of this court, and considering that the Defendant has denied that he has an interest in the suit property, I dismiss the Application dated 8th April 2015 with costs.
Dated and delivered in Malindi this 3rd day of July2015.
O. A. Angote
Judge