Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELC 3519 (KLR)

Jeremiah Matoke v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & another [2019] KEELC 3519 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2019
2,633 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court found a defendant in contempt for ignoring a land transfer order, ordered the transfer executed anyway, and summoned him for punishment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale (Mwangi Njoroge, J) on a notice of application dated 5/3/2019 by the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought the 2nd defendant's citation for contempt of orders issued on 28/11/2018 pursuant to the court's judgment of 15/11/2018 (specific performance directing transfer of 10 acres comprised in Deed Plan No. 238375, LR No. 7847/7), execution of transfer documents by the Deputy Registrar, and the Chief Land Registrar's registration of the transfer. The 2nd defendant, William Wilhite Anyenda, opposed, contending he was complying with a decree in Kitale SPM Land Case No. 50 of 2002 and had effected subdivisions; the 1st defendant bank stated it had released discharge of charge forms and the title deed upon repayment of the loan. The court found the 2nd defendant's supporting documents unsigned, undated and unverified, his excuse a 'smoke screen', and noted he never sought relief within the three-month compliance period. Applying the test that contempt requires awareness of the order plus failure, neglect or refusal to comply, the court held the 2nd defendant in contempt, found the 1st defendant blameless, and granted prayers (3) and (4): execution by the Deputy Registrar and immediate registration and transfer by the Chief Land Registrar. The superior court's orders were given precedence over the subordinate court decree, and the 2nd defendant was ordered to appear on 13/5/2019 for punishment, with automatic warrants of arrest in default. No express costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 2nd defendant was in contempt of the orders issued on 28/11/2018 pursuant to the judgment of 15/11/2018

Holding

Yes. The 2nd defendant admitted knowledge of the orders and admitted non-compliance, and the court found his explanations for non-compliance implausible.

Reasoning

The court applied the two-limb test for contempt: awareness of the order and failure, neglect or refusal to comply. The 2nd defendant admitted both knowledge and non-compliance in his replying affidavit. His excuse of ongoing compliance with the Kitale SPM Land Case No. 50 of 2002 decree was unsupported by credible evidence - the area list bore no signature or date and the subdivision plan no surveyor's endorsement - and no application for incapacity was made within the 3-month compliance period.

p. 2
02

Whether the 2nd defendant's reliance on the decree in Kitale SPM Land Case No. 50 of 2002 excused non-compliance

Holding

No. The excuse was dismissed as a smoke screen; the superior court's orders must take precedence.

Reasoning

The court found the alleged implementation of the subordinate court decree unsubstantiated: no instructions to advocates, no correspondence with a surveyor, unsigned documents and no timelines. The parties dealt with in the lower court differed from those before the superior court. The court held the superior court judgment of 15/11/2018 must be implemented before any attempt to implement the lower court decree.

p. 2
03

Whether the 1st defendant was culpable

Holding

No. The 1st defendant had released discharge of charge forms and the original title deed to the 2nd defendant and had no further interest in the security.

Reasoning

The 1st defendant's Branch Manager deponed that the loan had been repaid, discharge of charge forms signed and released with the original title, and that the specific performance order of 28/11/2018 recognized this release. The 2nd defendant did not deny this. The court found the delay attributable solely to the 2nd defendant's conduct.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The ingredients for a finding of contempt are proof that the alleged contemnor was aware of the court order and that he failed, neglected or refused to comply with it.
  • A litigant may not hide behind alleged compliance with a subordinate court's decree to escape compliance with an order of a superior court.
  • Where a litigant claims inability to comply, the excuse must be supported by credible, probative evidence and raised within the compliance period.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 5/3/2019 is granted in terms of prayer No. (3): the Deputy Registrar of the court is allowed to sign and execute all documents necessary to cause the transfer of the decreed 10 acres of land comprised in Deed Plan No. 238375 and issued with LR. No. 7847/7
  2. 2.Prayer No. (4) granted: the Chief Land Registrar to proceed with the registration and transfer of 10 acres comprised in Deed Plan No. 238375 issued with LR No. 7847/7 to the plaintiff forthwith
  3. 3.Implementation of the orders made in the superior court judgment dated 15/11/2018 shall precede all other attempts to implement the decree in Kitale SPM Land Case No. 50 of 2002
  4. 4.The 2nd defendant to appear before the court on 13th May 2019 at 12:30 pm to be punished for contempt of court, in default of which warrants of arrest shall automatically issue against him

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaNot specified (referenced generally on the rule of law and judicial authority)

Cases cited (1)

  • Peter Njogu Karanu, Ann Njoki Njoroge, Margaret Wambui Kimiti, Charles Njama Wangai, Martin Mitheo & Others -vs- Nyakinyua Mugumo Trees Co.Ltd., Chief Land Registrar, Director of Surveys and the Attorney General
    eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the superior court to enforce its own orders and punish for contempt; orders issued in its judgment dated 15/11/2018

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jeremiah Matoke v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & another [2019] KEELC 3519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3519/eng@2019-05-08

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