Johannes Akelo Omboto & another v Kenya Railways Corporation [2016] KEELC 125 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a contempt claim against Kenya Railways because the plaintiffs could not prove any disobedience of a consent order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant disobeyed the consent order requiring rent to be deposited into an account in the names of the parties' advocates
No disobedience established; the account was opened and the collected rent deposited, and the Plaintiffs did not dispute the documentary evidence
The Defendant produced an undisputed statement of account opened on 29th May 2013 in the names of Behan & Okero Advocates and Otieno Yogo & Co. Advocates with a deposit of Sh.2,443,810, which matched the tabulated rent collected from tenants between 1st July 2010 and 11th April 2013. The Plaintiffs did not controvert this evidence, so compliance with the consent order as to opening the account and depositing rent was confirmed.
Standard of proof applicable to contempt applications
The Plaintiffs bore the burden of proving disobedience to a standard higher than balance of probabilities
Relying on Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd as cited by the Defendant, the court held that contempt must be proved almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt. Since the Plaintiffs could not even show when they forwarded the account opening documents, the court could not find unreasonable or inordinate delay, let alone wilful disobedience.
Whether the Defendant's offer of the suit property to Telkom Kenya Ltd and the filing of Kisumu H.C. Misc. Civil Application No. 256 of 2006 breached the status quo under the consent
Court declined to determine these matters at this stage, leaving them to the relevant suits or an appeal
The pleadings in Kisumu HCCC No. 34 of 2012 were not availed, so the Telkom Kenya use of a portion of the suit land was left to that matter; the effect of the misc application on the status quo could not be determined one way or the other, and an aggrieved party may appeal. The parties were warned against multiplicity of suits under Sections 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 21st March 2013 is dismissed with costs in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit property and enforcement of its consent order
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Johannes Akelo Omboto & another v Kenya Railways Corporation [2016] KEELC 125 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/125/eng@2016-11-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.