[2014] KEHC 4419 (KLR)
The court held that both the High Court and the Environment and Land Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine contempt proceedings arising from land disputes. However, since the substantive suit is a land dispute and the Environment and Land Court is operational in the station, it is appropriate and efficient...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 4419 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Raeli Tapsabei; Defendant: David Rono
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kericho
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 41 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Forum for Contempt Proceedings
- Outcome
- File transferred to Environment and Land Court for further orders.
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Jurisdiction, Transfer of Proceedings
- 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
Raeli Tapsabei
Plaintiff
David Rono
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Directions on Forum for Contempt Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether contempt proceedings arising from a land dispute should be heard by the Environment and Land Court or the High Court.
- 2 Whether the High Court retains jurisdiction to punish for contempt in land matters.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that both the High Court and the Environment and Land Court have jurisdiction to hear and determine contempt proceedings arising from land disputes. However, since the substantive suit is a land dispute and the Environment and Land Court is operational in the station, it is appropriate and efficient for the contempt proceedings to be placed before the Environment and Land Court. The court found no merit in the argument that only the High Court and Court of Appeal can hear contempt applications in such matters, given the express provisions of Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. Accordingly, the file should be placed before the Environment and Land Court for...
Court Disposition
File transferred to Environment and Land Court for further orders.
Orders
- This file be placed before Honourable Lady Justice Waithaka on 25th June 2014 for further orders and directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
17 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERICHO
MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPL. NO. 41 OF 2013
RAELI TAPSABEI...................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DAVID RONO.......................................................DEFENDANT
RULING ON DIRECTIONS
Pursuant to the consent order recorded by learned counsels appearing in this matter, the ruling delivered by this court on 14th March 2014 was set aside and the Motion dated 11th November 2013 which gave rise to the aforesiad orders was restored for interpartes hearing. Before the restored Motion was fixed for interpartes hearing, learned counsels made oral submissions in which they sought for directions on the way forward in this dispute. This ruling is therefore the outcome of those submissions.
Mr. Orina, learned advocate for David Rono, the Defendant/Respondent herein urged this court to give directions on the various issues. I will however give direction on a single issue. It is a question as to whether or not the contempt proceedings should be placed before the Environment and Land court. It was pointed out that since the order alleged to have been breached arose from a land dispute, then the application for contempt should be placed before the aforesaid court. Mr. Mutai, learned advocate for Chirchir Paul Kipsang, the Personal Representative of the estate of Raeli Tapsabei (deceased), the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, was of the view that under the Provisions of the Judicature Act, it is only the High Court and the Court of Appeal which can hear and determine applications for contempt. I have considered the rival submissions over the issue touching on the question of jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that the substantive suit is a land dispute which was initially filed before Environment and Land Court. In fact the initial orders which were allegedly breached were issued by Lady Justice Waithaka, the Environment & Land Judge. The case was later transferred to the Chief Magistrate's court Kericho for hearing and determination. The Chief Magistrate's court thereafter issued some interim orders of injunction which were said to have been breached. The Plaintiff/Applicant has now approached this court claiming the Defendant/Respondent should be punished for breaching the orders. It is the submission of Mr. Orina that this being a land dispute, the appropriate court to deal with the matter is the Environment and Land Court. A critical examination of Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Actwill reveal that the Environment and Land Court has the power to entertain contempt proceedings arising from environment and land disputes. It is therefore not right to argue that it is the preserve for the High Court and the Court of Appeal. In essence, both the High Court and the Environment and Land Courts have jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Since this court already has an Environment and Land Court in situ, the matter should be placed before the aforesaid court during this month's session. I am of the view that the other issues raised and argued before this court can competently be handled by the Environment & Land Court hence there is no need for this court to make a determination.
In the end, I direct that this file be placed before Honourable Lady Justice Waithaka on 25th June 2014 for further orders and directions.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court this 24th day of June, 2014.
…................
J.K.SERGON
JUDGE
In the presence of:
N/A Mr. Mutai for Plaintiff
N/A Mr. Orina for Defendant