Republic v County Government of Meru & another Ex parte Applicant Theresa Stephen Kiunga as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Michuki M’kiunga – Deceased [2022] KEELC 1965 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found Meru county officials in contempt for ignoring a land judgment but deferred their sentencing, allowing the landowner to finally build on her plot.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the interested parties were in contempt of the judgment of 20.5.2020
Yes - the interested parties were recalcitrant, adamant and made it difficult or impossible for the orders to be obeyed
The orders were clear, unambiguous and known to the interested parties, who admitted knowledge and that compliance was within their mandate. They made no attempt to seek review, clarification or appeal, waited out the six-month compliance period, and only attempted compliance when the application was filed. Their excuses of physical planning law and policy were spurious and never raised earlier. The consent record showed losses occasioned by their delay.
Whether the applicant should be allowed to develop the suit land notwithstanding lack of respondents' approvals
Allowed in terms of prayer 3, following the partial consent approving the building plans
Under the partial consent dated 16.12.2021, the applicant's building plans were approved as per notification dated 15.12.2021 with conditions, and the applicant was to pay rates and rents arrears of Kshs. 351,000/- by 31.1.2022. The court found the application merited in terms of prayer 3.
Whether the court should determine the legality of the accrued interests and penalties of Kshs. 411,840/-
Refused; the demand was a consequence of the interested parties' own dereliction
The court declined to entertain the issue left pending in the consent, holding that the respondents wanted the court to determine legality of interests and penalties caused solely by their own acts of omission and commission, which flew against Articles 10 and 232 of the Constitution. The respondents' conduct showed slow, unwilling and disinterested compliance under the Fair Administrative Actions Act.
Legal principles established
#- The ingredients for contempt must be proved and the threshold is satisfaction beyond any shadow of doubt, since it involves possible deprivation of liberty
- A party with genuine difficulties in implementing a court order is not to be punished; penal consequences are reserved for truly recalcitrant contemnors
- Knowledge of an order supersedes personal service where a party clearly acts showing knowledge of the order
- The mental element for contempt is that the disobeying party either intended to disobey or made no reasonable attempt to comply
Court orders
#- 1.The application is found merited in terms of prayer No. 3 allowing the exparte applicant to develop, build, excavate, deposit building materials, fence, occupy, use and enjoy the suit land
- 2.The rest of the prayers are found unmerited and are refused
- 3.The three interested parties are directed to make mitigation before being sentenced for contempt of court
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B, 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Meru & another Ex parte Applicant Theresa Stephen Kiunga as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Stephen Michuki M’kiunga – Deceased [2022] KEELC 1965 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Application dated 11.2.2021 (Judicial Review proceedings, Meru ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1965/eng@2022-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.