Sospeter Kithumbi Murangiri (suing on his own behalf and on behalf of Ikandu Clan) v Albert Njeru & 8 others [2019] KEELC 4954 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Embu convicted nine defendants of contempt for violently defying a court order, confirming that ignoring court orders carries real consequences.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Service/knowledge of the injunction order
Service of the order of 29th November 2017 on all Defendants was proved
The ruling of 29th November 2017 was delivered in the absence of Defendants' counsel, so service had to be proved. The Plaintiff's advocate swore an affidavit of personal service at the Defendants' homes. The Defendants denied service but, despite signalling an intention to cross-examine the deponent, never did, and their advocate consented to written submissions. Unchallenged, the affidavit of service was accepted and service found proved.
Wilful disobedience of the order
Contempt by the 1st – 9th Defendants proved to the required standard
On 12th January 2018 the Plaintiff and his survey team were violently attacked, with at least one person shot with an arrow. The Defendants' replying affidavit did not directly respond to or specifically deny the events of that day, being casual and evasive. Applying Mutitika v Baharini Farm, the court was satisfied the Defendants knowingly and wilfully disobeyed the injunction to block survey and demarcation.
Costs
Costs follow the event and were awarded to the Plaintiff
Under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise. Since the Plaintiff succeeded in establishing contempt, costs of the application were awarded to him.
Legal principles established
#- A person cannot be punished for contempt unless the order was served on him or he had knowledge of it through alternative means
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt
- There is an unqualified obligation to obey court orders even if believed irregular or void
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st – 9th Defendants are convicted of contempt of court
- 2.The 1st – 9th Defendants shall attend court personally on a date to be fixed by the court upon delivery of the ruling for mitigation and sentencing
- 3.The Plaintiff is awarded costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 3 & 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 5 of the Judicature Act (Chapter 8, Laws of Kenya)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sospeter Kithumbi Murangiri (suing on his own behalf and on behalf of Ikandu Clan) v Albert Njeru & 8 others [2019] KEELC 4954 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 25th May 2018 (Embu ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4954/eng@2019-01-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.