Fredrick Ochieng Ogola v Omar Faisal Mohamed & 3 others [2018] KEELC 1532 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a contempt claim because disobeying a court order must be proven to a higher standard than ordinary civil cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the orders issued on 18/7/2017 were lawful court orders
The status quo orders were lawful; the court has power under Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act to grant preservation orders including maintenance of status quo.
The court relied on its statutory power under Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 to make interim or permanent preservation orders including injunctions. It noted that a court may direct maintenance of the prevailing status quo in order to preserve the suit property rather than grant an interim injunction, citing Musa Angira Angira v ICDC. The order of 18/7/2017 maintaining status quo was therefore lawful.
Whether the 2nd to 4th defendants disobeyed the status quo order and whether contempt orders should issue
The contempt application was dismissed because the applicant did not prove disobedience to the required standard.
The court observed that the orders carried a penal notice warning of committal and sequestration. The respondents claimed the status quo order allowed them to remain in cultivation and that the applicant had abused the order, prompting criminal cases in the Chief Magistrate's Court at Migori. Weighing the allegations, the court found a missing link between the order of 18/7/2017 and the application, since contempt must be proved to a standard higher than a balance of probability, which the applicant failed to attain.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt of court proceedings is higher than proof on a balance of probability
- An order for status quo merely leaves the situation of things as they stand pending the hearing of the reference or complaints
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff/applicant's notice of motion dated 10th March 2018 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 3 Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) Civil Procedure Act; Sections 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Court Act, No. 46 of 2016; Section 13(7)(a) Environment and Land Court Act, 2015
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Fredrick Ochieng Ogola v Omar Faisal Mohamed & 3 others [2018] KEELC 1532 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/1532/eng@2018-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.