[2016] KEHC 2827 (KLR)

[2016] KEHC 2827 (KLR)

The court did not make a final determination on the contempt application. Instead, it adopted the parties' consent that the petitioner be granted 14 days to file a replying affidavit to the application for contempt, and that both parties file written submissions thereafter. The court emphasized the need for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEHC 2827 (KLR)
Parties
Petitioner: Silas Kinyua M'Mweti; Respondent: The District Land Adj. & Settlement Officer, Igembe District; Respondent: The Director, Land Adjudication and Settlement; Respondent: The Demarcation Officer Akirangondu 'A' Adjudication Section; Interested Party: M'Mujuri Thirange & 20 Others
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 7 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application and Adoption of Consent Order
Outcome
Consent adopted; directions given for further filings; no final orders on contempt at this stage.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders, Land Adjudication, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Status Quo Orders Land Adjudication Interlocutory Applications

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

Silas Kinyua M'Mweti

Petitioner

The District Land Adj. & Settlement Officer, Igembe District

Respondent

The Director, Land Adjudication and Settlement

Respondent

The Demarcation Officer Akirangondu 'A' Adjudication Section

Respondent

M'Mujuri Thirange & 20 Others

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application and Adoption of Consent Order

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner violated the consent order of status quo issued on 1st December, 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner should be held in contempt of court for alleged violation of court orders.
  3. 3 Whether the application for contempt should be determined or parties should be allowed to file further affidavits and submissions.

Ratio Decidendi

The court did not make a final determination on the contempt application. Instead, it adopted the parties' consent that the petitioner be granted 14 days to file a replying affidavit to the application for contempt, and that both parties file written submissions thereafter. The court emphasized the need for procedural fairness and allowed the parties to ventilate their positions before any substantive orders on contempt could be made. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Consent adopted; directions given for further filings; no final orders on contempt at this stage.

Orders

  • The petitioner is granted 14 days to file a replying affidavit to the application dated 27th July, 2016.
  • Upon filing of the replying affidavit, parties to file written submissions within 14 days each, applicant to start.