Jackson Kiprotich Kibor v Kipruto Arap Lelei & 19 others [2018] KEELC 3305 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the parties were in contempt of the orders of 24th November 2017
All parties, including the plaintiff, were found in contempt on a preliminary investigation, including by the court's own visit to the suit parcel
The court relied on its own site visit and the parties' conduct after 24/11/2017. Although the respondents argued the orders were not served and had lapsed once the matter failed to proceed on 18th-20th December 2017, the court found both plaintiff and defendants had ploughed and some had planted despite the restraint, placing all parties in contempt.
Whether punishment should follow the finding of contempt
The court declined to fine or commit any party despite finding contempt
The court exercised discretion in light of the nature of the dispute, which is a family dispute between a father and his children, holding that punishing all parties would likely escalate the dispute. It however warned it would not condone further disobedience and restated the restraint orders.
Whether the status quo orders of 4th July 2016 should be restored on review
The review applications dated 6.3.2018 were dismissed and the 24.11.2017 restraint orders restated against all parties
The defendants argued that the orders of 24.11.2017 had conditionally lifted the status quo to enable hearing on 18th-20th December 2017 and should automatically revert when the matter was not reached. The court did not restore the 2016 status quo orders; it restated the 24.11.2017 orders restraining all parties from ploughing, arrowing or using the suit land pending hearing and determination.
Legal principles established
#- A court may find parties in contempt on its own preliminary investigation, including evidence gathered on a site visit, yet decline to impose punishment where punishment would escalate the dispute
- Disobedience of court orders will not be condoned, and restraint orders remain binding on all parties until the suit is heard and determined
Court orders
#- 1.Restatement of the orders made on 24.11.2017: the plaintiff and the defendants are restrained from further ploughing, arrowing or utilizing the suit land in any manner until the suit is heard and determined
- 2.No fine imposed on any party despite the finding of contempt
- 3.Consecutive hearing dates to be given to the parties; the suit to be heard on a priority basis
- 4.Applications dated 6.3.2018 for review dismissed
- 5.Application dated 13th January 2018 allowed partially
- 6.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent and contempt jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to enforce its own interlocutory orders (no specific statutory provision quoted)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jackson Kiprotich Kibor v Kipruto Arap Lelei & 19 others [2018] KEELC 3305 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment (Eldoret Environment and Land Court suit; two applications dated 13.1.2018 and 6.3.2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3305/eng@2018-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.