[2020] KEELC 3691 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 3691 (KLR)

The court found that there was insufficient clarity and evidence regarding the date, content, and service of the court orders allegedly disobeyed by the defendants. The formal order annexed by the plaintiff was not issued on the date claimed, and the specific prohibitions cited were not reflected in the extracted...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 3691 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Salim Abdalla Bakhshuwein (Administrator of the Estate of the late Abdalla Bakhshuwein); Defendant: Ahmed Salim Said (Administrator of the late Salim Sheikh Said)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 105 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
JO Olola
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Service of Process, Interlocutory Orders, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Service of Process Interlocutory Orders Injunctive Relief

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Salim Abdalla Bakhshuwein (Administrator of the Estate of the late Abdalla Bakhshuwein)

Plaintiff

Ahmed Salim Said (Administrator of the late Salim Sheikh Said)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were served with and had knowledge of the court orders allegedly disobeyed.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are in contempt of court for disobeying the orders issued regarding the suit property.
  3. 3 Whether the application for committal to civil jail for contempt meets the required standard of proof.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was insufficient clarity and evidence regarding the date, content, and service of the court orders allegedly disobeyed by the defendants. The formal order annexed by the plaintiff was not issued on the date claimed, and the specific prohibitions cited were not reflected in the extracted order. The affidavit of service was ambiguous as to what was actually served and did not provide adequate details to establish personal service or knowledge. Given the quasi-criminal nature of contempt proceedings and the high standard of proof required, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove service or knowledge of the order on the part of the defendants....

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application dated 1st December 2015 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the respondents.