Kamau v Wachira & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 642 of 2011) [2022] KEELC 3586 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to punish defendants for ignoring orders because the plaintiff's evidence was too weak to prove contempt.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff proved contempt of the orders of May 3, 2018
No - the plaintiff failed to meet the elevated standard of proof of contempt
The court accepted that orders were made and known to the defendants, and that compliance was disputed. The burden lay on the plaintiff to prove disobedience to a standard higher than balance of probabilities, almost but not beyond reasonable doubt. The plaintiff's evidence consisted of blurred black and white photographs with no probative value, while the 1st defendant's photographs showed the wall brought down and the 2nd defendant had removed her gate, which the plaintiff conceded. The application therefore failed.
The applicable principles for committal for contempt
The court applied Hardkinson, Mutitika v Baharini Farm and Micheal Sistu Mwaura Kamau: obligation to obey court orders; wilful disobedience; clarity of the order; and the elevated standard of proof
The court restated the settled principles: every person against whom a court order is made must obey it unless discharged; a person who knowingly and wilfully breaches an order is liable to committal; the order must be clear and precise; and contempt must be proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities, with the jurisdiction exercised cautiously.
Legal principles established
#- To commit a person for contempt, the court must be satisfied of wilful and deliberate disobedience of a clear and precise order known to the contemnor, proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's notice of motion dated March 15, 2019 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court in the suit; contempt application arising from the court's judgment of May 3, 2018
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau v Wachira & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 642 of 2011) [2022] KEELC 3586 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/3586/eng@2022-07-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.