Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment extract (suit filed by plaint on 28 February 2019 concerning parcel MN/IV/3458)· [2020] KEELC 2970 (KLR)

Ashok Labshanker Doshi & another v County Government of Mombasa & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party); Ali Hassan Joho (Applicant) [2020] KEELC 2970 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 April 2020
3,770 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that county governors are bound by court orders against their counties, even without personal service of those orders.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling on an application dated 20 February 2020 by Ali Hassan Joho, former Governor of the County Government of Mombasa, seeking to set aside the ruling of 12 February 2020 in which the court found him in disobedience of interim orders of injunction issued in a suit by the owners of parcel MN/IV/3458, Changamwe, against the County Government of Mombasa and an MCA, over an alleged invasion, demolition and enforcement notice on the suit land. Joho argued that the contempt application of 17 May 2019 was defective for not following the Judicature Act procedure and for want of a Notice to Show Cause; that he was a separate legal entity from the County Government and had to be personally served with the injunction order; and that he was never served with the contempt application and learned of the contempt finding only through the media. The court rejected all three arguments. It held that the contempt application was governed by Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which is self-contained and requires only a notice of motion in the same suit; that personal service of an order is not mandatory where awareness is shown, and the injunction had been made in the presence of counsel for the county, binding all its employees and agents including the Governor; and that Joho was in fact served through the County Attorney's office and actively participated in the contempt application through the County Attorney's submissions on his behalf. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicable procedure for disobedience of an injunction order

Holding

The application of 17 May 2019 was governed by Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, not the Judicature Act, and no NTSC was required.

Reasoning

Order 40 is self-contained: Rules 1 and 2 provide for the grant of injunctions and Rule 3 for the consequences of disobedience. The interim injunction had been issued under Order 40 Rule 1, and the contempt application was expressly brought under Order 40 Rules 3(1) and (3), requiring only a notice of motion in the same suit. The Judicature Act procedure was therefore inapplicable and the defect alleged did not exist.

p. 3
02

Whether personal service of the injunction order on the applicant was mandatory

Holding

No; knowledge of the order suffices, and the order was made in the presence of counsel for the 1st defendant, binding all its employees and agents including the Governor.

Reasoning

Relying on Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited, the court reiterated that personal service is not mandatory where awareness of the order is demonstrated. Since the interim injunction was issued in the presence of counsel for the County Government, all its employees, servants and agents, including the Governor, were deemed aware and bound to obey it. The issue had already been settled in the ruling of 12 February 2020.

p. 3
03

Whether the applicant, though not a party to the suit, was served with and participated in the contempt application

Holding

Yes; he was served through the County Attorney's office and actively participated through the County Attorney's representations on his behalf.

Reasoning

The process server was directed to the County Attorney's office where service was acknowledged on the Governor's behalf. The County Attorney's written and oral submissions at the hearing of the 17 May 2019 application expressly addressed whether the Governor had knowledge of the order and should be cited for contempt, demonstrating representation of the applicant. The County Attorney acts within the Governor's control as chief executive of the county.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Personal service of a court order is not mandatory in contempt/disobedience proceedings; it suffices that the respondent was aware of the order, including where the order was made in the presence of counsel.
  • Where the complaint is breach of an injunction granted under Order 40 Rules 1 and 2, the aggrieved party need only file a Notice of Motion in the same suit under Order 40 Rule 3, with no preconditions such as a Notice to Show Cause under the Judicature Act.
  • A county government, being an artificial person, acts through its employees and agents; an injunction against the county government binds all who act at its behest, including the Governor as chief executive, and service on the county government suffices.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 20 February 2020 seeking to set aside the ruling of 12 February 2020 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Judicature ActSection 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1, 2, 3(1), 3(2), 3(3)
  • Contempt of Court ActAct No. 46 of 2016 (noted as nullified by the High Court)

Cases cited (1)

  • Shimmers Plaza Limited vs National Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction and civil procedure rules governing contempt/disobedience of injunction orders (Order 40, Civil Procedure Rules); original civil suit jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ashok Labshanker Doshi & another v County Government of Mombasa & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party); Ali Hassan Joho (Applicant) [2020] KEELC 2970 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment extract (suit filed by plaint on 28 February 2019 concerning parcel MN/IV/3458). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2970/eng@2020-04-22

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