Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedApplication dated 7th December, 2018 (Notice of Motion)· [2020] KEELC 2162 (KLR)

Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Lands & 2 others; Paul Morombi Saoli (Representing Leposo Ole Saoli, now Deceased) (Interested Party); Ex Parte: Soitara Ole Saoli [2020] KEELC 2162 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 February 2020
MKMohammed Kullow
496 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 7th December 2018, the applicant Soitara Ole Saoli sought orders requiring the respondent Paul Morombi Saoli to show cause why he should not be cited for contempt of court and committed to civil jail. The applicant alleged that in disregard of an order of the court dated 19th April 2018, the respondent leased a portion of the land in dispute to one Matiko Ole Sadera, who occupied a store the applicant had erected, and that the respondent and his agents continued to threaten the applicant's family and servants. In support, the applicant annexed a lease agreement dated 12th June 2014. The respondent, in a replying affidavit dated 16th January 2019, dismissed the application as frivolous, an abuse of process and a side show aimed at derailing the main application. He asserted his family's occupation of Plot No. 60 Olokurto and noted that the only operative order stayed further proceedings and a decision of 9th March 2018 by the Deputy County Commander Narok North Sub-County. The court, per Mohammed Kullow J, held that contempt of court has criminal consequences so no assumptions may be made, and found no sufficient proof of disobedience of the court order. It also observed that the annexed lease, on its face, had commenced in January 2013 and expired in January 2014. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt was proved to the requisite standard

Holding

The application was dismissed because no sufficient proof of disobedience of the court order was demonstrated

Reasoning

The court approached contempt as an offence with criminal consequences, meaning no assumptions could be made against the alleged contemnor. It scrutinised the evidence, including the lease agreement annexed by the applicant, which on its face had commenced in January 2013 and expired after one year, and found the material insufficient to establish deliberate disobedience of the order of 19th April 2018. The respondent also characterised the application as an abuse of process and a side show aimed at derailing the main application.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Because contempt of court has criminal consequences, disobedience must be proved; no assumptions should be made and the standard is not met on mere inference

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th December 2018 seeking to cite the respondent for contempt was dismissed with no orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original contempt-of-court jurisdiction of the court in respect of its own orders (no specific provision cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Cabinet Secretary for Lands & 2 others; Paul Morombi Saoli (Representing Leposo Ole Saoli, now Deceased) (Interested Party); Ex Parte: Soitara Ole Saoli [2020] KEELC 2162 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Application dated 7th December, 2018 (Notice of Motion). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2162/eng@2020-02-25

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