Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in excerpt (ELC suit, Kajiado)· [2020] KEELC 916 (KLR)

Gabriel Onsongo Okondo & 10 others v Sangiri Ole Kiok & 2 others [2020] KEELC 916 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 October 2020
COChristine Ochieng
2,185 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kajiado court refused to stop a neighbour from using disputed land and dismissed a contempt claim, telling both parties to stay on their own portions until the boundary is officially determined.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Kajiado, per Christine Ochieng J, determined two interlocutory applications by the 1st Defendant, Sangiri Ole Kiok, against the 3rd Plaintiff, Amos Lemangen Ole Kaitei. The first, under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, sought an injunction restraining the 3rd Plaintiff from trespassing on land parcel Kajiado/Loodariak/123 pending the outcome of the suit. The second sought the 3rd Plaintiff's committal to civil jail for up to six months for allegedly disobeying the status quo order made on 2nd March 2020 by grazing cattle on the parcel. The court framed three issues: entitlement to the injunction, liability for contempt, and costs. Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, it found no prima facie case: both parties are registered proprietors in occupation of their respective parcels and the dispute is fundamentally a boundary dispute pending determination, with the Land Registrar's reports yet to be presented. Invoking Rule 32 of the ELC Practice Directions, the court directed that the status quo be maintained, each party remaining on its portion. On contempt, applying the four-element test from North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd and section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, the court held contempt proceedings criminal in nature and found the 1st Defendant had not proved a deliberate breach, given the absence of a demarcated boundary and the 3rd Plaintiff's denial of grazing. Both applications were found unmerited and disallowed, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st Defendant established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction

Holding

No prima facie case was established; the suit turns on an undetermined boundary dispute and status quo was directed instead

Reasoning

Both parties are registered proprietors in occupation of their respective parcels. The fulcrum of the suit is a boundary dispute which the Land Registrar Kajiado North attempted to resolve but whose reports are yet to be presented in court. Without a clear demarcation, trespass cannot be established against the 3rd Plaintiff, so the first Giella limb fails and the remaining limbs need not be addressed.

p. 2
02

Whether the 3rd Plaintiff is in contempt of the status quo order of 2nd March 2020

Holding

Contempt not proved; the applicant failed to establish deliberate breach of a clear order

Reasoning

Contempt proceedings are criminal in nature and the burden lies on the applicant to the higher standard. The order required maintenance of the status quo; each party remains in occupation of their respective portions and the 1st Defendant did not specify when or how grazing occurred, nor controvert the 3rd Plaintiff's denial and the absence of a clear boundary demarcation.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The four elements of civil contempt must be proved to the required standard: clear unambiguous order; knowledge/notice; breach; and deliberateness
  • Where no prima facie case is established on the first Giella limb, the court need not consider the remaining limbs as they are consequential
  • Where parties cannot agree to maintain status quo, the court may exercise discretion to order status quo pending hearing and determination of the suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 23rd December 2019 is disallowed
  2. 2.The 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2020 is disallowed
  3. 3.Status quo to be maintained with the 1st Defendant and the 3rd Plaintiff to remain on their respective portions of land pending the determination of the boundary
  4. 4.Costs of the two applications to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B & 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 29
  • Practice Directions on Proceedings in the Environment and Land Courts, and on Proceedings Relating to the Environment and the Use and Occupation of, and Title to Land and Proceedings in Other CourtsRule 32

Cases cited (2)

  • Giella Vs. Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    (1973) EA 358
  • North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v. Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act; Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Gabriel Onsongo Okondo & 10 others v Sangiri Ole Kiok & 2 others [2020] KEELC 916 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in excerpt (ELC suit, Kajiado). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/916/eng@2020-10-21

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