[2019] KEELC 711 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 711 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the court order of 21st May 2013 was ever served on the respondents. Without proof of service, the threshold for contempt of court was not met. The court advised the applicant to pursue execution of the court order through the proper legal channels,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 711 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Rispa Maende Olando; Respondent: Praxidis A Osale; Respondent: Careen N. Okanga; Respondent: Linus O. Juma; Respondent: Livingstone A. Murunda; Respondent: Stephen O. Opelli; Respondent: Land Registrar, Kakamega; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 159 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
NA Matheka
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Execution of Court Orders, Land Registration, Title Cancellation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Execution of Court Orders Land Registration Title Cancellation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rispa Maende Olando

Applicant

Praxidis A Osale

Respondent

Careen N. Okanga

Respondent

Linus O. Juma

Respondent

Livingstone A. Murunda

Respondent

Stephen O. Opelli

Respondent

Land Registrar, Kakamega

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were in disobedience of the court order dated 21st May 2013.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders of committal or fine for contempt of court.
  3. 3 Whether the Land Registrar should be compelled to cancel registrations and revert title to the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide evidence that the court order of 21st May 2013 was ever served on the respondents. Without proof of service, the threshold for contempt of court was not met. The court advised the applicant to pursue execution of the court order through the proper legal channels, specifically via the Deputy Registrar, rather than by way of contempt proceedings. Consequently, the application for committal or fine for contempt, as well as the ancillary orders sought, was found to be without merit and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 20th April 2015 is dismissed.
  • No orders as to costs.