Ruth Wanjeri Kamwere & anotherv Vincent Nyingi Nderitu [2021] KEELC 3986 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to jail three landowners for contempt because the allegations were speculation, showing contempt charges demand strong, specific evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Proof of contempt of court
Contempt must be proved to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities, and the Defendant failed to discharge that burden
The Defendant was uncertain who cut the trees; the identity of the lorry drivers and registration numbers were not disclosed, and no evidence linked the Plaintiffs to the logging. The leaflets exhibited did not implicate the Plaintiffs. The allegations rested on speculation that the Plaintiffs were likely suspects, falling short of the near-criminal standard required.
Enforceability of a status quo order by police supervision
A status quo order framed as prohibiting destruction, disposition or wanton waste is not amenable to police supervision
The acts constituting 'disposition' or 'wanton waste' are wide and varied and not obvious to a police officer in the ordinary course of duty. Deploying officers on the parcel would not enable them to know the full range of acts to guard against, so the order does not lend itself to supervision by the OCS or OCPD.
Costs of a partially successful application
Where a party succeeds only in part, costs may be left in the cause
Although costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Defendant succeeded only in obtaining the priority hearing direction while the contempt and enforcement prayers failed. Since the suit's hearing remains unconcluded, costs of the application were ordered to be in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, directs otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.The part heard suit certified fit for hearing on priority basis
- 2.The rest of the prayers sought in the application declined
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 4.The Deputy Registrar to cause the proceedings to be typed within 30 days
- 5.The suit to be mentioned on 7th June, 2021 for directions on the hearing or further hearing of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 63(c), 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21) and Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ruth Wanjeri Kamwere & anotherv Vincent Nyingi Nderitu [2021] KEELC 3986 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3986/eng@2021-03-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.