Samuel Ngugi Karungu & 2 others v Esther Wangeci Chege Nganga [2022] KEELC 866 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a contempt claim because the applicants couldn't prove wilful disobedience, and refused eviction they hadn't asked for in their pleadings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Defendant was in contempt of the orders of 25th February 2021
The Plaintiffs failed to prove intentional and willful disobedience to the required standard
The court noted the conflicting accounts: the Plaintiffs said the surveyor excised 0.49 acres in the presence of all parties, while the Defendant said the excision was of the portion she occupied and that the survey was done in her absence. Applying the elevated standard of proof in contempt, the court found the Plaintiffs had not demonstrated intentional and willful disobedience and directed parties to attend the exercise as directed in the orders of 25th February 2021.
Whether the court could grant eviction orders not sought in the Plaint
The court declined to grant eviction as it had not been pleaded
Prayer 3 of the motion sought eviction from the 0.49-acre portion, but the relief had never been claimed in the Plaint. The court held it could not grant such orders at that stage, underscoring that parties are bound by their pleadings and relief must flow from claims actually pleaded.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than a balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt
- Orders touching on liberty, such as contempt orders, ought to be granted only in the clearest of circumstances
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 19th July 2021 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear own costs
- 3.The parties are directed to avail themselves so that the exercise can be undertaken as directed in the orders of 25th February 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 51 rule 1 and Order 40 rule 3(1), (2) and (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act Cap 8; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and the inherent jurisdiction of the court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Samuel Ngugi Karungu & 2 others v Esther Wangeci Chege Nganga [2022] KEELC 866 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Notice of motion dated 19th July 2021 (suits number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/866/eng@2022-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.