Lakeview Investments Ltd v John Paul Odero (Sued as the Chairman, Nairobi Kenya Secondary Schools Heads Association [2020] KEELC 2624 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a company director in contempt for defying a land order, confirming you can be punished even without personal service of the order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Service of the contempt order
Service on the Plaintiff's advocate on 20th February 2019, which was acknowledged, constituted good service on the Plaintiff's Directors
Relying on Shimmers Plaza Limited vs. National Bank of Kenya, the court held that knowledge of an order by the alleged contemnor's advocate suffices for contempt proceedings, dispensing with personal service. The advocate's acknowledged receipt of the order on 20th February 2019 was therefore imputed to the Directors.
Disobedience of the status quo order
The Plaintiff, or its agents, built and completed a one-storey building and perimeter wall on the suit property between 20th February 2019 and 15th April 2019, in breach of the order
Photographs with timestamps of 20th February 2019 showed an incomplete one-storey building, while photographs taken on 15th April 2019 by Christine Simwa, supported by a certificate of computer printout, showed the same building completed with a perimeter wall. The Plaintiff's Director offered no explanation as to who carried out the construction despite the order restraining the parties and people acting under them.
Contempt liability of the Director
The Plaintiff's Director, Joseph Oduor Okwaro, was held in contempt and directed to appear for mitigation and sentencing
Having found the order clear, served or known, and breached, the court concluded the Directors were in contempt. Because contempt involves possible deprivation of liberty, the court fixed a separate date for mitigation and sentencing of the Director rather than committing him summarily.
Legal principles established
#- Personal service of a court order is not a prerequisite for contempt proceedings; knowledge of the order, including through the alleged contemnor's advocate, suffices
- The tests for contempt are the existence of a clear and unambiguous court order; service or knowledge of the order; and disobedience of that order
- There is an unqualified obligation to obey court orders unless and until they are discharged, even where the person affected believes the order to be irregular or void
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that the Plaintiff's Directors are in contempt of the orders of the court dated 25th January 2019 and served on their advocate on 20th February 2019
- 2.A finding that the Plaintiff's Director, Joseph Oduor Okwaro, is in contempt of the orders of the court of 25th January 2019
- 3.Joseph Oduor Okwaro directed to appear in court personally, on a date to be fixed in the registry, for mitigation and sentencing
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, invoked by the Defendant; arises from orders issued in the pending suit (original jurisdiction)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- U-Haul Vehicle Ltd v Kiambu Dandora Farmers Co. Ltd & 5 others [2020] KEELC 437 (KLR)[2020] KEELC 437 (KLR)26 Nov 2020
- U-Haul Vehicle Ltd v Kiambu Dandora Farmers Co. Ltd & 5 others [2020] KEELC 437 (KLR)[2020] KEELC 437 (KLR)26 Nov 2020
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lakeview Investments Ltd v John Paul Odero (Sued as the Chairman, Nairobi Kenya Secondary Schools Heads Association [2020] KEELC 2624 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2624/eng@2020-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.