Charles Steven Mbindyo v Justus Wainaina Njuguna & 2 others [2020] KEELC 1137 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to punish alleged land-order breaches because the claimant brought no official search proving titles had actually been registered.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether contempt of the injunctive orders was proved
Contempt was not proved because the Plaintiff failed to adduce evidence, such as an official search, showing that the suit property had been sub-divided and titles or Leases duly registered issued to third parties
The court reviewed the orders of 20th March, 2018 restraining the Defendants from dealing with L.R. No. 9917/4 and the Judgment of 15th May, 2020 confirming the Plaintiff's ownership. It then examined the Lease exhibited by the Plaintiff, noting it related to L.R. No. 9917/8, was unregistered, and that no official search proved sub-division or registration of titles. Absent such evidence, the contempt application failed.
Whether the court could nullify titles allegedly issued to third parties
The court declined to nullify the titles since the Plaintiff did not exhibit an official search showing the sub-division and issuance of titles or Leases
The Plaintiff's wife deponed that the property was sub-divided in 2017 and titles issued to third parties despite the orders, but the supporting documents were deficient: the Lease produced was for a different parcel (L.R. No. 9917/8), was unregistered, and no official search was produced. The court held it could not order nullification of titles on such evidence and dismissed the application.
Service of the injunctive orders on the Defendants
An Affidavit of Service showed the 1st Defendant was first served with the court order on 8th January, 2018, after which he instructed an advocate who filed a Notice of Appointment of Advocates
The court traced the procedural history: an initial injunction was granted on 27th November, 2017 and extended on various dates. The Affidavit of Service sworn on 22nd January, 2018 established service of the order on the 1st Defendant on 8th January, 2018, and he thereafter instructed an advocate who appeared by filing a Notice of Appointment on 23rd January, 2018, though no pleading was filed.
Legal principles established
#- Elements of civil contempt: the applicant must prove the terms of the order, the respondent's knowledge of those terms, and failure to comply; wilfulness and bad faith are then normally inferred
- A person who, knowing of an injunction, wilfully does something to break it is liable to be committed for contempt
- Applications for committal for contempt are treated with seriousness and urgency
- Contempt cannot be established without proof that the orders were actually breached through registered dealings
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 15th July, 2020 is dismissed with no order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over contempt of its own orders in a land suit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Steven Mbindyo v Justus Wainaina Njuguna & 2 others [2020] KEELC 1137 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 15th July, 2020 (within suit over L.R. No. 9917/4). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1137/eng@2020-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.