Meso Multi-Purpose Society Ltd v Luore Nyairo Company Ltd & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4623 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan High Court convicted a co-operative chairman for ignoring a land court order, ruling that you must obey court orders until they are set aside, even if you believe they are invalid.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Disobedience of court orders despite claimed invalidity
Belief in the invalidity of an order is no defence to contempt; the order binds until set aside
The court held that conduct contrary to a court order constitutes contempt where the alleged contemnor was served or had knowledge. It is irrelevant that the contemnor believes the order invalid or irregular; his responsibility was to comply pending setting aside. The Chairman's affidavits demonstrated both knowledge of the orders and a readiness to disobey them, justifying conviction.
Retrospective application of the Contempt of Court Act 2016
The Act, having commenced on 13th January 2017, does not apply to conduct and applications predating its commencement
The court noted the matters complained of and the application itself preceded the commencement of the Contempt of Court Act (13/1/2017), and the respondents submitted no basis for retrospective application. The contempt jurisdiction was therefore exercised independently of the Act.
Proof of service and knowledge against each alleged contemnor
Only the Chairman was proved to have knowledge of the orders; the Treasurer was never served and contempt was not proved against the Secretary or Treasurer
The process server's affidavit confirmed service of the Chairman and Secretary on 10/3/2016, but no evidence of service on the Treasurer. The Chairman's own affidavits admitted knowledge of the orders. The court distinguished between the three alleged contemnors, convicting only the Chairman whose conduct and sworn statements demonstrated willful disobedience.
Truth of the plaintiff's claim of occupation since 1989
The court found, on the record including its own ruling of 11/7/2016, that the plaintiff was not in occupation of the 250 acres as at 17/12/2009 and the Chairman's allegations of occupation were false
The court consulted its ruling of 11/7/2016, which recorded the executive officer's report that the 250 acres were occupied by the defendant as at the date of the status quo orders. This contradicted the Chairman's sworn assertions of occupation since 1989, undermining his credibility and supporting the inference that his conduct encouraged the invasion of the land.
Legal principles established
#- A court order must be obeyed until set aside, regardless of a party's belief as to its validity, provided the party was served with or had knowledge of it
Court orders
#- 1.The Chairman of the plaintiff, Francis Wafula Nyongesa, is convicted of the offence of contempt of court for willfully disobeying the court orders and ordered to personally appear in court on 30th January 2018 for sentencing
- 2.The prayers against the other alleged contemnors (the Secretary, Patrick Simiyu Mumia, and the Treasurer, Justus Wanyama) are dismissed
- 3.Francis Wafula Nyongesa shall personally pay the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent power of the High Court to punish for contempt of its own orders (Contempt of Court Act No. 46 of 2016 considered but held not retrospective)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Meso Multi-Purpose Society Ltd v Luore Nyairo Company Ltd & 3 others [2018] KEELC 4623 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Application dated 4/11/2016 (suit details not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/4623/eng@2018-01-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.