Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of motion dated 20th September, 2021 (suit re Mwimbi/Murugi/1715 and 1716)· [2021] KEELC 402 (KLR)

Alvin Mbae & 2 others v Edwin Nyaga Mukatha & 2 others [2021] KEELC 402 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 December 2021
CYC. K. Yano
2,683 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ordered two men arrested for ignoring land orders, confirming that disobeying a court order can land you in civil jail.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Chuka (C. K. Yano, J) determined a notice of motion dated 20th September, 2021 in which the Applicants/Defendants sought the arrest and committal to civil jail of the 1st and 3rd Respondents/Plaintiffs, Alvin Mbae and Wilson Mbaabu, for disobeying court orders issued on 9th December, 2020 and 8th March, 2021. Those orders directed the Plaintiffs to give vacant possession of L.R Mwimbi/Murugi/1715 and 1716, directed their eviction, and directed the District Surveyor, Meru South to restore boundaries. The Applicants alleged the Respondents were personally served, never appealed or sought review, refused to vacate, threatened the 2nd Applicant and destroyed survey beacons erected on 28th June, 2021. The Respondents filed no response despite several opportunities and did not appear at the hearing; only the Applicants filed submissions, relying on Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 22 Rules 82 and 83 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court framed the sole issue as whether the applicants were entitled to the orders sought. It found the terms of the orders clear and unambiguous, service proved by affidavit, and no explanation for non-compliance. Applying authorities on the obligation to obey court orders and the need to protect the dignity and authority of the courts, the court found the 1st and 3rd Respondents guilty of contempt, allowed the application as prayed, directed the OCS Chogoria to arrest and produce them for sentencing, and awarded costs to the Applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st and 3rd Respondents/Plaintiffs were guilty of contempt of the orders of 9th December, 2020 and 8th March, 2021

Holding

Yes - the orders were clear, personally served, unappealed, and deliberately disobeyed; the Respondents were found guilty of contempt.

Reasoning

The court examined both orders and found their terms clear: the Plaintiffs were to give vacant possession of Mwimbi/Murugi/1715 and 1716 or be evicted, and boundaries were to be restored. Service was proved by affidavit of service and accepted. The Respondents neither complied, explained non-compliance, appealed, nor sought review, and did not oppose the application. Applying the principles in the cited authorities, the court was satisfied the disobedience was established and found the Respondents guilty of contempt.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The court will only punish for contempt if satisfied that the terms of the order were clear and unambiguous and the contemnor had proper notice of the terms of the order.
  • A court order remains valid and binding until set aside and must be complied with even if believed irregular or void.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated 20th September, 2021 is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The Officer Commanding Police Station (OCS) Chogoria Police Station to arrest the 1st Respondent, MR. ALVIN MBAE and the 3rd Respondent, MR. WILSON MBAABU and produce them before the court for purposes of sentencing
  3. 3.Costs of the application awarded to the Applicants to be borne by the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 51
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 22 Rules 82 and 83

Cases cited (4)

  • Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance vs Cabinet Secretary for Devolution & Planning & 3 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd vs Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another
    [2005] 1 KLR 828
  • Awadh vs Mambu (No. 2)
    No. 53 of 2004 (2004) KLR 458
  • B vs Attorney General
    (2004) 1 KLR 431
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent contempt powers of the court; applicants invoked Order 22 Rules 82 and 83 of the Civil Procedure Rules as read with Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Alvin Mbae & 2 others v Edwin Nyaga Mukatha & 2 others [2021] KEELC 402 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Notice of motion dated 20th September, 2021 (suit re Mwimbi/Murugi/1715 and 1716). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/402/eng@2021-12-16

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