[2024] KEELC 7295 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 7295 (KLR)

The court held that the application for contempt and mesne profits was filed in a closed miscellaneous file, which had been ordered closed after granting leave to appeal out of time. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain further proceedings in the closed file. The proper course was to strike out the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 7295 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: Pwani Breeze Limited; Applicant: Africa Inland Church Tudor
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case 12 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt and Mesne Profits Application
Outcome
application struck out for being filed in a closed miscellaneous file; each party to bear own costs
Judges
SM Kibunja
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Vacant Possession, Mesne Profits, Sequestration of Property
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Vacant Possession Mesne Profits Sequestration of Property

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pwani Breeze Limited

Respondent

Africa Inland Church Tudor

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt and Mesne Profits Application

  1. 1 Whether the application for contempt and mesne profits was properly filed in a closed miscellaneous file.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders of contempt, sequestration, and mesne profits against the respondent's directors.
  3. 3 Whether the court should strike out the application or determine it on merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for contempt and mesne profits was filed in a closed miscellaneous file, which had been ordered closed after granting leave to appeal out of time. As such, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain further proceedings in the closed file. The proper course was to strike out the application, with liberty to the applicant to file it in the appropriate record. The court further found it fair and just for each party to bear their own costs, despite the general rule on costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Court Disposition

application struck out for being filed in a closed miscellaneous file; each party to bear own costs

Orders

  • The application dated 26th February 2024 is hereby struck out for being filed in a closed miscellaneous file.
  • Each party to bear their own costs.