Jedrom Building and Civil Engineering Limited v County Government of Uasin Gishu & another [2016] KEELC 590 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan county government was fined Kshs.500,000 for demolishing a building despite a court injunction, but an individual officer escaped liability.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the County Government of Uasin Gishu was in contempt of the injunction order
Yes. The order was served on its legal advisor, it entered appearance through counsel, the orders were extended in counsel's presence, and the building was nonetheless destroyed.
The court found the order was served on S.K. Metto, the County's legal advisor, on 2/7/2014; the County instructed Arap Mitei & Co. Advocates who attended court on 16/7/2014; interim orders were extended in counsel's presence. The court concluded beyond balance of probability that the County was served and aware, and that the County destroyed the building as the only party claiming the land.
Whether Joel Lagat, the 2nd respondent, was individually liable in contempt
No. Individual responsibility is required in quasi-criminal contempt proceedings and neither service on him nor his participation was proved.
Contempt being quasi-criminal, individual responsibility must be shown. The 2nd respondent denied service and denied being the Deputy County Enforcement Officer, saying he was a mere County Askari. The court found doubt as to whether he was aware of the order and found it was not proved on the required standard that he participated in the demolition.
The appropriate punishment for the County's contempt
A fine of Kshs.500,000/=, with attachment and sale of property to that value in default; the County cannot be jailed as a state organ.
Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act criminalises disobedience of court orders. A corporate state organ cannot be committed to civil jail. Restitution was inappropriate since the plaintiff had amended the plaint to include the value of the destroyed property, so a punitive fine with attachment in default was imposed.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and require proof of individual responsibility, including personal awareness of the order.
- A person who knows of a court order must obey it and cannot judge for themselves whether it is null or irregular, and courts must uphold their authority and dignity.
- Disobedience of an order of temporary injunction attracts punishment in the form of imprisonment or attachment and sale of the contemnor's property.
Court orders
#- 1.The County Government of Uasin Gishu, found in contempt of the court order, to pay a fine of Kshs.500,000/= forthwith
- 2.In default of payment of the fine, property of the defendant to the value of Kshs.500,000/= to be attached and sold
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jedrom Building and Civil Engineering Limited v County Government of Uasin Gishu & another [2016] KEELC 590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Contempt application in ELC suit (Eldoret), arising from suit over parcel Eldoret Municipality/Block 10/2052. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/590/eng@2016-08-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.