Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case (application dated 8.9.2015) - Eldoret· [2016] KEELC 994 (KLR)

Oliver Langat Ptallah & 3 others v County Government of Uasin Gishu & 3 others [2016] KEELC 994 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
1 April 2016
AOAntony Ombwayo
1,287 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 court dismissed a contempt claim against Uasin Gishu County because the applicant named institutions, not individuals, and couldn't prove the order was served on responsible officers.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff applied by notice of motion dated 8 September 2015 for the County Secretary, Chief Officer Lands, Housing and Planning and Chief Security Reinforcement Officer of Uasin Gishu County to be cited for contempt of an injunction issued on 19 August 2015 restraining interference with and demolition of buildings on Eldoret/Municipality Block 14/2235, 14/2236, 14/2237 and 14/2234, or in the alternative damages for the demolition, plus costs. The applicant relied on an affidavit of service by Robert Omenge Onduko, submitted that the Chief Officer had admitted engaging in demolitions, and invoked Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, producing photographs of the demolition. The defendants conceded the validity of the order but contended the applicant had not shown the respondents were aware of it or that it was breached. Ombwayo J accepted that a valid order existed and that there was evidence of destruction of property, but held that service on the persons responsible at the County Government was not proved, and that the Legal Officer who was served was not cited and so could not be punished. The court further held that the 1st defendant, being a body corporate, the 2nd defendant, being a ministry, and the 3rd and 4th defendants, being State organs, could not be cited for contempt. The application was accordingly dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt was established against the defendants

Holding

The application failed: no punishable person was cited and service of the order on those responsible was not proved

Reasoning

The court accepted that a valid injunctive order existed and that there was evidence of destruction of property, but found the order had not been proved served on the persons responsible at the County Government. Further, the named defendants - a county government, a ministry and State organs - are not persons who can be cited for contempt. Without a punishable individual, contempt could not lie.

p. 3
02

Service of the court order with penal notice

Holding

Although the Legal Officer of the County Government was served, he was not cited and cannot be punished

Reasoning

The affidavit of Robert Omenge Onduko showed service on the Legal Officer, and the court assumed that as an officer of the court he should have advised the County Government of the order's import. However, since he was not cited for contempt, he cannot be punished, leaving no culpable party before the court.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A body corporate or State organ cannot be cited for contempt of court; contempt proceedings must be brought against a person capable of being punished
  • Before punishing contempt, the applicant must demonstrate service of the order on the persons responsible for compliance

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is dismissed with costs to the defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 40, Rule 3(1)
Jurisdiction invoked
Orders 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; contempt in disobedience of an interlocutory injunction issued by this Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Oliver Langat Ptallah & 3 others v County Government of Uasin Gishu & 3 others [2016] KEELC 994 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). ELC Case (application dated 8.9.2015) - Eldoret. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/994/eng@2016-04-01

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