Ashok Labshanker Doshi & another v County Government of Mombasa & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party); Ali Hassan Joho (Applicant) [2020] KEELC 2970 (KLR)
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
#Key legal issues
#Applicable procedure for disobedience of an injunction order
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.
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.
Whether personal service of the injunction order on the applicant was mandatory
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.
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.
Whether the applicant, though not a party to the suit, was served with and participated in the contempt application
Yes; he was served through the County Attorney's office and actively participated through the County Attorney's representations on his behalf.
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.
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.The application dated 20 February 2020 seeking to set aside the ruling of 12 February 2020 is dismissed with costs
- 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.