Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2022] KEELC 147 (KLR)

Tebino v Chief Land Registrar & another; Waiyaki (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Petition E015 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 147 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 June 2022
1,219 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to punish two land registrars for contempt because the applicant couldn't prove they actually knew about the court order they allegedly ignored.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, Valentine Ajiembo Tebino, moved the court by notice of motion dated 28th January 2022 under Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking findings of contempt against the Senior Assistant Chief Land Registrar, David Nyandoro Nyambaso, and Land Registrar Choka Berita Andeyo for disobedience of the court's mandatory orders of 25th November 2021 and the decree of 8th December 2021. He sought warrants of arrest, committal to Kamiti Maximum Prison and Langata Women's Prison respectively for not less than six months, and a declaration that both officers were unfit to hold public office. Both alleged contemnors filed replying affidavits stating they were never served with the decree, which was instead left with a legal clerk, and that the second alleged contemnor had been deployed to the National Geospatial Center, Survey of Kenya Ruaraka since August 2021. The court applied authority establishing that contempt requires proof of the contemnor's knowledge of the order, whether by service or otherwise, and willful and deliberate disobedience proved to the criminal standard. It found the Petitioner had failed to demonstrate either knowledge or willful disobedience. The court also noted weighty issues raised concerning the existence of Dagoretti/Riruta/T.738, suggesting the Petitioner pursue these in civil litigation where evidence could be called. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs, with liberty for the court to summon the Senior Assistant Chief Land Registrar on the existence of the suit property.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the alleged contemnors had knowledge of the judgment and decree of 25th November 2021 and 8th December 2021

Holding

They did not; the decree was served on a legal clerk and not on the offices of the Chief Land Registrar, and the second alleged contemnor had been deployed elsewhere since August 2021

Reasoning

The court relied on authority that due to the gravity of contempt proceedings, the order must be served or the person cited must have personal knowledge of it. Both alleged contemnors swore they were never served with the decree. Knowledge is a question of fact, and the Petitioner did not demonstrate it. Without knowledge, willful and deliberate disobedience cannot be established.

p. 3
02

Whether the alleged contemnors willfully and deliberately disobeyed the court orders

Holding

No; the Petitioner failed to demonstrate willful and deliberate disobedience

Reasoning

Contempt is constituted by conduct denoting willful defiance of or disrespect towards the court. Because contempt is of a criminal nature, breach must be proved to the required standard, namely knowledge of the order plus deliberate and willful disobedience. Neither element was established on the affidavits filed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Personal service of an order may be dispensed with where the contemnor's knowledge of the order is demonstrated
  • Contempt requires proof of knowledge of the order and willful and deliberate disobedience to the required standard

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 28th January 2022 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
  2. 2.This court is not prevented from issuing summons to the Senior Assistant Chief Land Registrar, David Nyandoro Nyambaso, to shed light on whether the suit property the subject of the intended Registration exists

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Judicature ActSection 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure (Amendment No 2) Rules of England 2012Rule 81.4

Cases cited (3)

  • Sheila Cassatta Issenberg & Another vs Anthony Macharia Kinyanjui
    [2021] eKLR
  • Basil Criticos vs Attorney General & 8 Others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Mburu Ndekei vs Ruth Njeri Mutema
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Cap 8 of the Laws of Kenya and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tebino v Chief Land Registrar & another; Waiyaki (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Petition E015 of 2020) [2022] KEELC 147 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/147/eng@2022-06-16

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