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 the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 25th October 2019)· [2020] KEELC 2233 (KLR)

Prairie Co-operative Society Limited v Kuria Gitonga & 7 others [2020] KEELC 2233 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 June 2020
DOD. O. Ohungo
1,378 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a contempt claim because the 2011 status quo order didn't clearly say which land it covered.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By Notice of Motion dated 25th October 2019, the 7th and 8th defendants in the main suit sought a finding that the plaintiff was in breach and contempt of the consent order made on 18th October 2011 maintaining status quo of the suit properties, an order punishing the plaintiff for contempt, and an order that the O.C.S Lanet provide security to prevent the plaintiff from developing the suit land. The application was supported by an affidavit of Hon. Onesmus Kimani Ngunjiri, director of the 7th defendant, who deposed that the plaintiff's agents entered the suit properties on 24th October 2019, cultivating and fencing. The plaintiff opposed, asserting through its secretary Titus Kiragu that the status quo order related to LR No. 22909 and that it had maintained status quo; it alleged instead that the applicants destroyed its fence on LR No. 4730/45. The court reaffirmed its inherent and statutory jurisdiction to punish contempt and that court orders are binding until discharged, but noted the higher-than-civil standard of proof applies. Finding that the 2011 order, made by M.J.A Emukule J, did not specify the property to which it related, and that the parties disputed what constituted the suit property, the court held it could not ascertain what the parties were to do or refrain from doing, and was therefore unable to find disobedience to the required standard. The application was dismissed with costs in the cause, and the parties were encouraged to set the suit down for hearing. Delivery was remote pursuant to COVID-19 practice directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt of the 18th October 2011 consent status quo order was proved

Holding

Contempt was not proved; the court could not establish the scope of the order or the acts of disobedience to the required standard

Reasoning

The order made by Emukule J in 2011 did not state which property it related to. The parties disputed what constituted the suit property - the applicants disclaimed interest in LR No. 4730/45, the subject of the plaint, while the plaintiff said the order concerned LR No. 22909. Because contempt carries penal consequences for liberty and property, the higher standard of proof applies, and the applicants failed to discharge it.

p. 2
02

The court's jurisdiction over contempt

Holding

The court has both statutory and inherent jurisdiction to punish violation of its orders

Reasoning

Relying on section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Court of Appeal authority, the court affirmed its power to punish any party who violates its orders, since court orders issue ex cathedra and are compulsive and binding. Jurisdiction was thus affirmed even though the order under challenge was made by another judge over eight years earlier.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities applicable in ordinary civil proceedings
  • Court orders are binding and must be obeyed regardless of a party's view of them, until discharged
  • Every court has inherent jurisdiction to punish violation of its orders and uphold its authority and dignity

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 25th October 2019 dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause
  3. 3.Parties encouraged to set down the suit for hearing
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to punish for contempt, including under section 5(1) of the Judicature Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Prairie Co-operative Society Limited v Kuria Gitonga & 7 others [2020] KEELC 2233 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the excerpt (Notice of Motion dated 25th October 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2233/eng@2020-06-04

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