B2 Yatta Ranching Co-operative Society Ltd v County Council of Kitui & 12 others [2020] KEELC 1688 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a Kitui County lands official in contempt for trying to subdivide disputed land while a court preservation order was still in force.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether Engineer Jacob Kakundi was in contempt of the status quo orders
He was found in contempt for publishing the Part Development Plan in the Daily Nation and the Kenya Gazette while status quo orders were in existence
The court found the order of status quo made on 12th February 2009 in the presence of the 1st Defendant's advocate, and reiterated on 29th July and 24th September 2019. Knowledge of the order suffices for contempt. Instead of denying disobedience, Engineer Kakundi admitted signing Gazette Notice No. 1405 and the newspaper notice announcing the Part Development Plan, confirming his disobedience of the preservation orders.
Whether Abdullahi K. Adan was in contempt
No contempt was established against him
The 13th Defendant was not a party when the 2009 order was made, and the National Police have been in continuous occupation of a portion of the suit property, with the only dispute being the acreage (300 or 5,300 acres), which was unresolved as at 24th September 2019 and was effectively addressed in the Ruling of 24th April 2020.
Whether an injunction should issue against the excision/sub-division of L.R. No. 12010
Yes; the status quo ordered on 12th February 2009 is to be maintained pending trial, save for the National Police's utilisation of the 5,300 acres
The status quo order had never been set aside, and sub-division and alienation to third parties would obliterate the suit property and take away the substratum of the suit. The purpose of a temporary injunction is preservation of the suit property pending disposal of the main suit, so the Part Development Plan process must stop pending trial.
Whether the orders of 19th March, 2020 should be vacated
The 1st Defendant's application to set them aside was dismissed with costs
The court held that the status quo orders of 12th February 2009 remained operative and that the 1st Defendant, a party since 2008, could not unilaterally proceed with the Part Development Plan. Instead of preserving its rights, the 1st Defendant's publication of the plan was an affront to the rule of law, warranting dismissal of its application.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a court order suffices to prove service for purposes of contempt; personal service is not strictly required
- Every person against whom a court order is made is bound to obey it unless and until it is discharged, even if they believe it to be irregular or void
- A party who knows of an order, whether null or valid, must apply to have it discharged and cannot disobey it
- The purpose of a temporary injunction is preservation of the suit property and maintenance of the status quo pending trial
Court orders
#- 1.Engineer Jacob Kakundi, the 1st Defendant's County Executive Committee Member, Lands, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development, be and is hereby found to be in contempt of the orders of this court of 12th February, 2009, 29th July, 2019 and 24th September, 2019
- 2.The said Engineer Jacob Kakundi to appear in this court for mitigation and sentencing
- 3.Save for the utilisation of the 5,300 acres of the suit property by the National Police, Border Police Unit, the status quo, as ordered by the court on 12th February, 2009, to be maintained pending the hearing of the suit
- 4.The 1st Defendant to pay the costs of the Application
- 5.The 1st Defendant's Application dated 31st March, 2020 dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the suit property L.R. No. 12010 (suit commenced by Plaint dated 14th February, 2008 in the High Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "B2 Yatta Ranching Co-operative Society Ltd v County Council of Kitui & 12 others [2020] KEELC 1688 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in judgment (suit filed 2008, originally in the High Court). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1688/eng@2020-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.