[2018] KEELC 3613 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3613 (KLR)

The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required in contempt proceedings. No cogent evidence was presented to demonstrate that the 1st respondent had breached the status quo order issued on 7th July, 2014. The allegations made by the applicant were unsubstantiated and denied...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3613 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Zachary Maina Munyua; Respondent: Nancy Wamuyu Munyua; Defendant: Teresa Wakanyi Mugo; Defendant: Beatrice Wairimu Munyua; Defendant: Catherine Wanjuri Munyua; Defendant: Damaris Wanjiku Munyua
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 215 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Judges
L Waithaka
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders, Burden of Proof, Sub Judice Rule
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Status Quo Orders Burden of Proof Sub Judice Rule

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zachary Maina Munyua

Applicant

Nancy Wamuyu Munyua

Respondent

Teresa Wakanyi Mugo

Defendant

Beatrice Wairimu Munyua

Defendant

Catherine Wanjuri Munyua

Defendant

Damaris Wanjiku Munyua

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Contempt Application

  1. 1 Whether the 1st respondent is in contempt of court for allegedly breaching a status quo order issued on 7th July, 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to prove contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether discussing matters before the court with third parties and organizing meetings constitutes contempt or breach of the sub judice rule.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the heavy burden of proof required in contempt proceedings. No cogent evidence was presented to demonstrate that the 1st respondent had breached the status quo order issued on 7th July, 2014. The allegations made by the applicant were unsubstantiated and denied by the 1st respondent. Given the criminal nature of contempt proceedings, the standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities, approaching beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the applicant did not meet this threshold, and therefore, the application for contempt was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 2nd September, 2016 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the 1st respondent.