Zibu & 9 others v Munguti & 10 others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court threw out a contempt application because the applicants used the wrong procedure, so their complaint about defiance of court orders was never heard.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court had jurisdiction to determine the contempt application notwithstanding delivery of final judgment
The court did not reach the functus officio question; it held the application was fatally defective because the mandatory contempt procedure under section 5 of the Judicature Act had not been followed
The applicants invoked the Civil Procedure Act and Rules without regard to section 5 of the Judicature Act, which is the first port of call for contempt procedure. The court applied English CPR rules 81.4-81.8 on the required contents, service and hearing of contempt applications, found them unmet, and held it lacked jurisdiction over prayers 3, 4 and 5. The whole motion was struck out with costs to the respondents.
Whether the 1st defendant was in contempt of the decree dated July 12, 2018 and the Court of Appeal status quo orders
No finding was made; the contempt claim failed on procedural grounds
Although the applicants alleged defiance of the status quo orders issued by the Court of Appeal in civil appeal No 260 of 2018 and civil application No 199 of 2018, the court never reached the merits. Because the contempt application did not comply with the mandatory procedure, the court held it was divested of jurisdiction and struck the application out as a non-starter, without determining whether contempt was proved.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt of court proceedings in Kenya are governed by section 5 of the Judicature Act, which imports English law and procedure as at the time of the alleged contempt
- Non-compliance with the mandatory substantive procedure for contempt applications divests the court of jurisdiction to entertain them
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated November 9, 2020 is struck out
- 2.Costs to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act; the court held it was divested of jurisdiction over the contempt prayers by section 5 of the Judicature Act (Cap 8) procedure non-compliance
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Zibu & 9 others v Munguti & 10 others", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 78 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15505/eng@2022-12-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.