Riverbank Plaza Limited v City Council of Nairobi & another [2020] KEELC 3629 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to jail a Nairobi County official for contempt because the landowner couldn't prove the official actually knew about the 2007 court order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Standard of proof in contempt proceedings
The standard is higher than balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt, per Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd
Because contempt is quasi-criminal and the contemnor risks loss of liberty, the plaintiff had to establish to a degree beyond a balance of probabilities that the respondent willfully disobeyed the order of 10th May, 2007. Even absent a response to the application, the burden of proof remained on the plaintiff.
Knowledge of the order as a precondition to contempt
In the absence of evidence of service of the order on the respondent or his awareness from another source, contempt cannot be established
There was no evidence that the respondent or his office was served with the order of 10th May, 2007, nor that he became aware of it before writing the letter of 18th August, 2015. The plaintiff also did not respond to the letter to bring the order to the respondent's attention.
Whether the letter to the sub-tenant amounted to disobedience
The writing of the letter per se did not amount to disobedience of the order
The court was satisfied the respondent wrote to the occupant demanding vacation, but the letter itself did not constitute disobedience of the injunction, and there was no evidence the plaintiff brought the order to the respondent's attention thereafter, nor that he insisted on action despite such notice.
Evidential value of the photographs of the demolition
Photocopies of photographs could not establish the alleged demolition or its extent
The photographs annexed were photocopies and the court could not appreciate the act or extent of the demolition; even if it occurred on the respondent's instructions, without proof of his awareness of the order it could not amount to contempt.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and the standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- To punish for contempt it must be proved that the contemnor was aware of the order and willfully disobeyed it
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated 24th September, 2015 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 3.The plaintiff shall take immediate steps to prepare the main suit for hearing without any further delay
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt of court orders of the court, over its interlocutory injunction order of 10th May, 2007
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Riverbank Plaza Limited v City Council of Nairobi & another [2020] KEELC 3629 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion application dated 24th September, 2015 in the main suit over L.R No. 3734/843. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3629/eng@2020-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.