Lucy Wanjiku Muriithi v Joseph Mwangi Mathenge & 2 others [2016] KEELC 468 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to jail land occupants for disobeying an injunction because the person accusing them brought no real evidence to prove it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant proved contempt of the court's orders to the standard required for committal
The application failed; unsubstantiated allegations denied by the respondents cannot sustain a committal order
The court noted that the applicant's supporting affidavit contained mere unsubstantiated allegations, which the respondents denied on affidavit. Because contempt proceedings are criminal or quasi-criminal and engage the loss of liberty, the applicant was obliged to prove the alleged breach with cogent evidence to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt. No evidence at all was adduced, so committal could not issue.
The applicable standard of proof in contempt proceedings
Higher than proof on a balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
Drawing on Sam Nyamweya v Kenya Premier League, Eliud Muturi Mwangi v LSG Lufthansa Services, and North Tetu Farmers Company v Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi (quoting Gatharia K. Mutikika v Baharini Farm Ltd), the court affirmed that where liberty is at stake the breach must be precisely defined and satisfactorily proved, with the strictness of proof consistent with the gravity of the charge.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt proceedings are criminal/quasi-criminal in nature and, because they engage the liberty of the alleged contemnor, the standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- An applicant for committal must prove that the respondent actually disobeyed the court order, with cogent evidence, before the respondent can be cited for contempt
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 25th February 2016 seeking committal of the respondents to civil jail for contempt is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the court to enforce its own orders; contempt application arising from order of 23rd April 2015 restraining interference with possession of L.R. No. Iriani/Chehe/1606
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lucy Wanjiku Muriithi v Joseph Mwangi Mathenge & 2 others [2016] KEELC 468 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Notice of motion dated 25th February 2016 in the suit concerning L.R. No. Iriani/Chehe/1606. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/468/eng@2016-10-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.