Titus Kungu t/a Watford Print Media & 30 others v Saruki Investments Limited; Kenya Power & Lighting Company & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 1859 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court refused to jail landlords' directors for contempt because the tenants couldn't prove deliberate disobedience with specific, documented acts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over contempt
The court has jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Order 40 rule 3(1) CPR
The court accepted the applicants' submission that Section 5 of the Judicature Act empowers the Environment and Land Court to deal with contempt and that Order 40 rule 3(1) gives jurisdiction to punish disobedience of its orders. The preliminary objection on jurisdiction therefore failed.
Whether the contempt application is fatally defective
It is not defective; a Notice of Motion is a proper vehicle for contempt proceedings
Relying on Kiiru Tea Factory Limited v Stephen Maina Githiga and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, the court found that contempt proceedings may be commenced by Notice of Motion and that no leave was required, dismissing the preliminary objection.
Whether the Respondent's directors were guilty of contempt
No; the applicants failed to discharge the high burden of proving wilful disobedience
The Tribunal orders of July 2020 had lapsed by their own terms on 28th July 2020. As to the orders of 21st August 2020, the supporting affidavit did not specify any contravening acts. Racheal Wahito's January 2021 visit was not shown to breach the orders, and no acts were attributed to the other three directors.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to entertain contempt applications under Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Order 40 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules
- An application for contempt may properly be brought by way of Notice of Motion
- Contempt must be proved beyond any shadow of doubt, with full knowledge or notice of the order, given the high threshold involving deprivation of liberty
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 7th February 2021 is dismissed
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2021 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Order 40 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Articles 50(1), 159(2)(b), 159(2)(e) and 165(3)(e) of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Titus Kungu t/a Watford Print Media & 30 others v Saruki Investments Limited; Kenya Power & Lighting Company & another (Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 1859 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC Case (Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2021) - Nairobi. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1859/eng@2021-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.