AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 17th November 2020· [2021] KEELC 378 (KLR)
Malvi Investments Limited v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others [2021] KEELC 378 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#The High Court dismissed a bid to jail Nairobi Metropolitan Services' Director General for contempt because the plaintiff couldn't prove willful disobedience.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2020 in which the Plaintiff sought the committal to civil jail for six months of Major General Mohammed A. Badi, Director General of the Nairobi Metropolitan Services, for contempt of injunction orders issued by the court on 13th October 2020 restraining interference with the plaintiff's property LR No 209/12824, Ngara, Nairobi. The application was supported by an affidavit of Robinson Kioko Mutuku, the plaintiff's Project Manager, who alleged that despite service of the order, agents of the 2nd Respondent continued constructing and encroaching on the property, exhibiting photographs said to show a complete construction. The application was opposed through replying affidavits of Geoffrey Cheruiyot, who deponed that renovation of a toilet had stopped upon service of the order. The court, L. Komingoi J, identified the single issue as whether the application was merited. Relying on Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd on the heightened standard of proof in contempt, Nyamogo on personal service on officers, and Alken Communications on the need to specify what each defendant allegedly did in breach, the court found the applicant had failed to specify the acts of disobedience by the Director General, and that the photographs showed incomplete structures consistent with the respondent's account. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the Director General was in willful and deliberate contempt of the injunction orders issued on 13th October 2020
Holding
No - contempt not proved
Reasoning
The applicant's deponent did not specify the acts of disobedience by the Director General. The photographs annexed showed incomplete, not complete, structures, corroborating the respondent's evidence that renovation stopped upon service of the order. Applying the elevated standard of proof for contempt and the requirement to specify what each person did in breach, the applicant failed to discharge its burden.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Personal service on each officer is required; service of an order on a company does not constitute service on its directors
- Where committal for breach of injunction is sought, it must be made clear what each defendant is alleged to have done and whether it was in breach of the order
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) Judicature Act Cap 8, Sections 3A and 63(c) Civil Procedure Act, Article 159(1) Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Malvi Investments Limited v Nairobi City County Government & 2 others [2021] KEELC 378 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/378/eng@2021-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.