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· [2020] KEELC 3691 (KLR)

Salim Abdalla Bakhshuwein (Suing in his Capacity as the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Abdalla Bakhshuwein [2020] KEELC 3691 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 January 2020
905 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, suing as administrator of the Estate of Abdalla Salim Bakhshuwein, moved the Environment and Land Court at Malindi by Notice of Motion dated 1st December 2015 seeking that the Defendants and one Abdul Aziz Ali Mohamed alias M'Manga be summoned and arrested to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for six months for disobeying court orders restraining interference with the suit property. The application was supported by the Plaintiff's affidavit asserting that orders issued on 9th July 2015 were served on the Defendants by a licensed process server. The 2nd Defendant, Faiz Said, opposed the application in a replying affidavit, averring that he was served on 23rd July 2015 with two applications and a mention notice but was never served with, nor aware of, the orders alleged to have been disobeyed. The court found material discrepancies: the orders annexed were granted on 15th July 2015, not 9th July 2015 as deposed; the formal order did not contain the prohibitions on 'digging' and 'digging pits' asserted by the Plaintiff; and the process server's affidavit was vague as to what was served and how the Defendants were identified. Applying the principle that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and the alleged contempt must be satisfactorily proved, the court dismissed the application with costs to the Respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt was proved against the Defendants

Holding

The contempt application failed because the applicant did not establish the orders allegedly disobeyed, their date, their tenor, or their service upon and knowledge by the alleged contemnors

Reasoning

The applicant's affidavit asserted orders issued on 9th July 2015, but annexture 'A' showed the orders were granted on 15th July 2015. The formal order extracted did not contain the prohibitions the applicant claimed. The process server's affidavit did not clearly show what was served, whom he served, or how he identified them. Given the quasi-criminal nature of contempt, the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof.

p. 2
02

Standard of proof in contempt proceedings

Holding

Because contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and liberty is at stake, the alleged contempt must be satisfactorily proved

Reasoning

The court restated the settled principle that committal proceedings engage personal liberty and therefore require satisfactory proof of both the order and its breach, including service and knowledge by the alleged contemnor. Applying that principle, the evidential gaps in the applicant's material meant no committal orders could issue.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the alleged contempt must be satisfactorily proved because a person's liberty is at stake

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 1st December 2015 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the High Court/Environment and Land Court (contempt proceedings seeking committal to civil jail); no specific statutory provision stated

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Salim Abdalla Bakhshuwein (Suing in his Capacity as the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Abdalla Bakhshuwein [2020] KEELC 3691 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/3691/eng@2020-01-23

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