Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment (appeal from Narok Chief Magistrate's Court, Cis-Mara/Oleleshwa land suits)· [2022] KEELC 103 (KLR)

Suleiman v Lankas (Environment and Land Appeal 35 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 103 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 June 2022
CMC.G. Mbogo
2,492 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court on whether the respondent had purged contempt of the court's orders dated 14th July 2021, by which Justice Kullow had found her guilty of contempt, fined her Kshs. 100,000/- and directed maintenance of status quo pending the substantive appeal against a Chief Magistrate's decree awarding her four acres of land. The respondent paid the fine within the stipulated period. The court directed her cross-examination and a Deputy Registrar's site visit, which found third parties in possession, a commercial building of six shops, a timber yard, a car wash and ongoing construction. The appellant urged that contempt could only be purged by cancelling the subdivisions and demolishing the structures. Reviewing the green cards and chronology, the court found that the respondent subdivided and transferred the land between 25th April 2019 and 19th December 2019, when no stay or status quo orders were in force; the suit land had ceased to exist before the orders were made. The court held there was no willful disobedience, the respondent was not in contempt, and there was no subject matter on which further orders could issue. It made no orders as to costs. The ruling effectively ends the contempt proceedings while the substantive appeal remains the parties' recourse.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent had purged the contempt

Holding

No contempt survived: the suit land had become non-existent before the stay/status quo orders were made, so there was no willful disobedience and nothing to purge

Reasoning

The court traced the sequence of events: the respondent obtained orders on 25th April 2019, subdivided and transferred the land, and the title passed on between 25th April and 19th December 2019, when no stay orders were in force. The Deputy Registrar's site visit confirmed third-party possession and development. On that factual matrix, contempt could not suffice and the appellant was 'a little too late'.

p. 5
02

Nature of a status quo order

Holding

A status quo order is an ancillary preservation order that leaves the situation as it exists pending determination; it is distinct from an injunction

Reasoning

Adopting the dictum of Murithi J in Baobab Beach Resort as quoted by Tuiyott J, the court distinguished injunctions (substantive equitable remedies granted upon proof of a right or prima facie case) from status quo orders (ancillary preservation orders not dependent on proof of right).

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Court orders must be obeyed; a person enjoined by a court order has a duty to carry it out and may be committed for deliberate failure
  • Contempt cannot be founded on breach of an order made after the subject matter had ceased to exist
  • An order for maintenance of status quo is an ancillary preservation order, distinct from an injunction, and does not depend on proof of a right or prima facie case

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Finding that the respondent is not in contempt as there exists no subject matter
  2. 2.No further orders made since nothing remains before the court to determine
  3. 3.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 160

Cases cited (2)

  • Canadian Metal Co. Ltd v Canadian Broadcasting Corp (No.2)
    [1975] 48 D.LR (3d)
  • Sam Nyamweya & Others v Kenya Premier League Ltd and Others
    [2015] eKLR
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court (Narok)
Not stated
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal from the Chief Magistrate's Court; ruling on compliance with the court's orders of 14th July 2021 (contempt) - jurisdiction under the court's appellate and supervisory powers

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Suleiman v Lankas (Environment and Land Appeal 35 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 103 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in judgment (appeal from Narok Chief Magistrate's Court, Cis-Mara/Oleleshwa land suits). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/103/eng@2022-06-07

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