Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedKajiado ELC Case No. 47 of 2020 (contempt application dated 27th October, 2020)· [2021] KEELC 3678 (KLR)

Leonard Letitio Onetu & 2 others v Karasanka Ole Maai & 5 others [2021] KEELC 3678 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 April 2021
COChristine Ochieng
2,256 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court found group ranch officials in contempt of a status quo order but spared them jail, ordering compliance instead.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants moved the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado by Notice of Motion dated 27th October, 2020 seeking committal to civil jail of the 1st to 3rd Respondents, officials of Eselenkei Group Ranch, for willful disobedience of status quo orders issued on 1st October, 2020 in Kajiado ELC Case No. 47 of 2020, or in the alternative an order compelling them to purge their contempt by abandoning surveying, beaconing, demarcating and mapping of land parcel KAJIADO/ESELENKEI/1 and withdrawing funds from the Group Ranch's KCB Emali Branch account. The Respondents, through a replying affidavit of Karasanka Ole Maai, denied contempt and contended that the status quo required them to continue performing their lawful duties as officials, that the order was not clear or precise, and that the Applicants had not met the standard of proof. The court framed one issue: whether the 1st to 3rd Respondents should be cited for contempt and committed to civil jail. Applying the Court of Appeal's reasoning in Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited on the meaning of status quo, the court held that the Respondents were not candid, that they had never sought clarification of the order, and that their admitted continuation of survey and account operations constituted clear contempt. However, the court declined to commit them to civil jail, holding this would violate Article 24 of the Constitution, and instead directed them to purge their contempt by abandoning the survey processes and ceasing withdrawals from the account pending settlement. The application was allowed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 1st to 3rd Respondents were in contempt of the status quo order of 1st October, 2020

Holding

Yes - their continued surveying, beaconing, demarcation of the suit land and operation of the group ranch account amounted to clear contempt of the status quo order

Reasoning

The court adopted the Shimmers Plaza definition of status quo as the existing state of things at the time of the order. The Respondents claimed the order was ambiguous but never sought clarification when it was made, and admitted continuing the survey and account operations. The court found them not candid and held that the consent to maintain status quo froze everything pending settlement.

p. 3
02

Whether the contemnors should be committed to civil jail

Holding

No - commitment to civil jail was declined as it would violate Article 24 of the Constitution; the Respondents were instead directed to purge their contempt

Reasoning

Having found contempt established, the court nevertheless exercised discretion against committal to civil jail on constitutional grounds, opting for a remedial order compelling the Respondents to comply with the status quo orders and stop the survey and bank withdrawals pending settlement.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Status quo means the existing state of things at the time the order is made; it cannot relate to past or future events, and everything is to remain as it was when the order was given
  • A party who claims an order is ambiguous but fails to seek clarification at the time the order is made is presumed to have known its meaning and import
  • Consent to maintain status quo pending settlement froze all operations, including survey, beaconing, demarcation and operation of the group ranch account

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st to 3rd Respondents are cited for contempt of the status quo orders issued on 1st October, 2020
  2. 2.The Respondents to purge their contempt forthwith and comply with the status quo orders by abandoning the process of surveying, beaconing, demarcating and mapping of Land Parcel Number KAJIADO/ESELENKEI/1
  3. 3.The Respondents to cease withdrawing funds from Account No. 1197789588, Kenya Commercial Bank, Emali Branch held by the 4th Respondent pending settlement of the dispute
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B, 3A
  • Judicature ActSection 5(1)
  • England Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2012Rule 81.4
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 24, 48, 50, 159(2)(d)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 29

Cases cited (10)

  • Peter Mahinda Kanyora & 2 Others v Julius Mugo Gachagua
    (2020) eKLR
  • Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2015) eKLR
  • Basil Criticos v Attorney General & 8 others
    (2012) eKLR
  • Nancy Mugure Njuguna v Leonard Mungai Njoroge & Another
    (2017) eKLR
  • Johnson v Grant
    1923 SC 789
  • Samuel M. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others
    (2020) eKLR
  • Saifudeen Abdullahi & 4 Others
    Mombasa High Court Misc Civil Cause No. 11 of 2012
  • Ex parte Peter Nyamu Karaguri Muhuri Karaguri v Attorney General & 5 Others
    (2013) eKLR
  • James Gachiri Mwangi v John Waweru Muriuki & 3 others
    (2020) eKLR
  • Priscillah Wanja Kibu v James Kiongo Kibui & another
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 48, 50 and 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Leonard Letitio Onetu & 2 others v Karasanka Ole Maai & 5 others [2021] KEELC 3678 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Kajiado ELC Case No. 47 of 2020 (contempt application dated 27th October, 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3678/eng@2021-04-09

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