Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 3/6/2015 (ELC suit, Kitale)· [2015] KEELC 285 (KLR)

African Inland Church Kenya(Trustees Registered) v Naomi Enyang & another [2015] KEELC 285 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 July 2015
EOE. Obaga
1,142 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court threw out a jail application for breach of a status quo order because the applicant's photos proved nothing was actually being built.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Nakuluja Academy, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 3/6/2015 seeking committal of the second respondent, Amin Ali Mohammed, to jail for up to six months for disobeying a consent order recorded on 26/2/2015 under which the parties were to maintain the status quo, with no further construction on the disputed plot (Plot Nawoitorong/Nakuluja/304"B") pending determination of the suit. The applicant alleged that on 1/6/2015 the respondent arrived with goons, threw stones into the school compound, and that a lorry delivered sand and construction was ongoing. The respondent denied breaching the order, contending the photographs showed an old wall and old buildings with no workers or dates, and in turn accused the applicant's agent, Reverend David Nakain Arika, of demolishing a fence on 1/6/2015 and reported the matter to Lodwar police. The court traced the background: the applicant had sued Naomi Enyang for a declaration of allotment, eviction and injunction; a status quo order was issued on 4/2/2015; the respondent was joined as second defendant and ELC No. 5 of 2015 was consolidated with the suit by consent. The court held that before the consent order the respondent had already fenced the plot and erected a gate, and that the applicant's photographs - showing only ballast, used cement bags and a pipe - disclosed no ongoing construction. It found the applicant's agents demolishing the fence were not candid, and that the application was a cover up. The application was dismissed with costs to the second respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt of the status quo order was proved

Holding

Contempt was not proved; the material showed no ongoing construction after the consent order

Reasoning

The court noted that before the consent of 26/2/2015 the respondent had already fenced the land with iron sheets and put up a gate, so those works predated the order. The applicant's photographs showed only a heap of ballast, two empty cement bags and a water pipe - no wall or building coming up, no workers on site. On the date of the alleged breach, the applicant's own agent Reverend Nakain and his people demolished a fence, an incident reported to Lodwar police. The court found the applicant's agents not candid and the application a cover up.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • To establish contempt of a status quo order, the applicant must demonstrate that the respondent carried out further construction after the order was made, beyond what was done before it

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dismissed with costs to the second respondent Amin Ali Mohammed
Jurisdiction invoked
Contempt jurisdiction of the High Court/ELC for disobedience of court orders (inherent powers)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "African Inland Church Kenya(Trustees Registered) v Naomi Enyang & another [2015] KEELC 285 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Notice of Motion dated 3/6/2015 (ELC suit, Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/285/eng@2015-07-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.