[2017] KEELC 1434 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1434 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof required in contempt proceedings. Although the stay order was issued in the presence of the defendant and his attorney, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any new activities by the defendant or his attorney contravened the order. The court noted that the applicant did not differentiate the fences and beacons currently complained of from those existing at the time of the original application, nor did she provide evidence regarding the activities of the tractor or who instructed its operation. The court concluded that the application was an attempt to revisit facts and evidence...

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1434 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ruth Wanjiru Kahoro; Defendant: Dr. George Gitonga Gitahi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
6 October 2017
Case Number
? 267 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendant
Judges
AA Omollo
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Injunctive Relief, Burden of Proof, Land Disputes
Source Language
English
Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctive Relief Burden of Proof Land Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ruth Wanjiru Kahoro

Plaintiff

Dr. George Gitonga Gitahi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant and his attorney were in contempt of court orders issued on 16th December 2015 and extended on 7th March 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant discharged the burden of proof required in contempt proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the actions complained of constituted disobedience of the court's stay order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof required in contempt proceedings. Although the stay order was issued in the presence of the defendant and his attorney, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that any new activities by the defendant or his attorney contravened the order. The court noted that the applicant did not differentiate the fences and beacons currently complained of from those existing at the time of the original application, nor did she provide evidence regarding the activities of the tractor or who instructed its operation. The court concluded that the application was an attempt to revisit facts and evidence...

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendant

Orders

  • The application dated 10th June 2016 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the defendant/respondent.