Odinga Makaka & 3 others v Lucile Nambo Pamba Suing as the administrator of the estate of Hannington Ouma Pamba & 9 others [2020] KEELC 3090 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Busia Environment and Land Court refused to punish a man for disobeying a land order because the order's wording was too vague to prove a breach.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Clarity of the order alleged to have been disobeyed
The consent order did not specify the particulars of the status quo obtaining prior to 19th July 2017, and was therefore too unclear to sustain a committal
The order merely directed that the status quo prior to 19/7/2017 be maintained without describing that status quo. Neither the grounds on the application nor the supporting affidavit elaborated the prior status of the suit land. An undated photograph did not link the respondent to the alleged acts. Following Jihan Freighters and A.B. v R.B., an unclear order cannot ground contempt.
Standard of proof and burden in contempt proceedings
The applicants, bearing the burden under Section 109 of the Evidence Act, failed to prove contempt to the quasi-criminal standard higher than the balance of probabilities
Citing Katsuri Ltd v Kapurchand Shah and Gatharia K. Mutikika v Baharini Farm Ltd, the court restated that contempt is quasi-criminal and guilt must be proved with strictness consistent with the gravity of the charge. The applicants submitted correctly that Section 109 of the Evidence Act imposed the burden on them, but did not discharge it.
Legal principles established
#- To sustain committal for contempt, the order alleged to have been disobeyed must be clear and precise, leaving no doubt as to what a party was to do or refrain from doing
- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and the standard of proof is higher than in civil cases
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 4th April 2019 is dismissed for want of merit
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 12 rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odinga Makaka & 3 others v Lucile Nambo Pamba Suing as the administrator of the estate of Hannington Ouma Pamba & 9 others [2020] KEELC 3090 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3090/eng@2020-04-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.