[2012] KEHC 2468 (KLR)
The court found that the 1st defendant provided a reasonable explanation for his conduct, including that he misunderstood the purport of the court order and, upon realizing its effect, ceased the complained-of activities and took remedial steps such as filling in the well. The court accepted the respondent's pledge...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 2468 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Kibobi Njuguna; Defendant: Morris Kadzagamba; Defendant: Garama Kaingu; Defendant: Kahindi Chea; Defendant: Charo Kadzagamba; Defendant: Martin Charo; Defendant: Salim Abdalla
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 155 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
- Outcome
- Application for contempt dismissed; costs awarded to applicant.
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders
- 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
Stephen Kibobi Njuguna
Plaintiff
Morris Kadzagamba
Defendant
Garama Kaingu
Defendant
Kahindi Chea
Defendant
Charo Kadzagamba
Defendant
Martin Charo
Defendant
Salim Abdalla
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant disobeyed court orders maintaining status quo on the suit property.
- 2 Whether the 1st defendant's actions amount to contempt of court warranting punitive orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the 1st defendant provided a reasonable explanation for his conduct, including that he misunderstood the purport of the court order and, upon realizing its effect, ceased the complained-of activities and took remedial steps such as filling in the well. The court accepted the respondent's pledge to comply with the orders going forward and noted the absence of evidence that the 1st defendant harvested stones or sand. In light of these factors, the court determined that punitive orders for contempt were unwarranted and declined to grant the prayers sought in the Notice of Motion, but awarded costs to the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application for contempt dismissed; costs awarded to applicant.
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 6th June, 2012 is dismissed.
- The applicant is awarded costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
STEPHEN KIBOBI NJUGUNA.............................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MORRIS KADZAGAMBA
GARAMA KAINGU
KAHINDI CHEA
CHARO KADZAGAMBA
MARTIN CHARO
SALIM ABDALLA...........................................................................DEFENDANTS
R U L I N G
Before me is the Notice of Motion dated 6th June, 2012 seeking that the 1st defendant be pushed for disobeying court orders issued on 21st November, 2011 that status quo be maintained in respect of the suit property. It is alleged in the supporting affidavit that the 1st defendant has proceeded despite the orders being served on him to drill a well, build houses and harvest stones or sand.
The application is brought primarily under Order 40 rule 3(1). In his affidavit in reply the respondent has admitted digging a well and undertaking some work on a house on the suit property, which he claims was renovation. He says he took these actions before he understood the true purport of the court order and he has now ceased the activities plugged the well and pledged to abide by the orders of this court. He says he had no intention of disobeying the court’s orders.
Having considered all the relevant matters I think the respondent has given a reasonable explanation for the conduct complained of. Further, he has taken the initiative of filling in the well even before being ordered to do so by the court. He has attached photographs. He denies harvesting stones or sand and explains that other occupants on neighboring portions are doing so and he has no control over them. No need will be served in taking this matter any further in light of the 1st respondent’s firm pledge to continue to obey the court orders now that he has understood them. I therefore decline to grant the prayers sought in the Notice of Motion but will award costs to the applicant.
Read, delivered and dated at Malindi this 3rdday of September, 2012 in the presence of:
Court clerk - Leah, Evans
C. W. Meoli
JUDGE