Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment (contempt application dated March 5, 2020 in pending suit)· [2023] KEELC 339 (KLR)

B2 Yatta Ranching Co-operative v Kitui County Government & 12 others (Environment & Land Case 21 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 339 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 January 2023
2,289 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court fined a former county official KShs 50,000 for disobeying land court orders, warning that ignoring court orders carries real consequences.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitui (L. G. Kimani J) dealt with mitigation and sentencing of Engineer Jacob Kakundi, the 1st defendant's former County Executive Committee member for Lands, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development, who had been found in contempt by a ruling of Angote J dated July 15, 2020 for disobeying status quo orders made on February 12, 2009, July 29, 2019 and September 24, 2019. The contempt arose from a newspaper advertisement the contemnor placed inviting the public on how to plan the suit land. In mitigation, counsel submitted that the contemnor was unaware of the orders, withdrew the advertisement on learning of them, that no party suffered any loss, that he apologised to the court and the parties, and that he had since left office. Counsel for the plaintiff left sentencing to the court; counsel for the 2nd to 6th defendants urged a firm stance, noting the ignorance claim was inconsistent with the earlier ruling and that the orders had been granted in the presence of the defendants' advocates. The court set out the sentencing framework: section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, applying the reasoning in Ashock Labshanker Doshi. Weighing the genuine apology, withdrawal of the advertisement and absence of prejudice against the need to uphold the authority and dignity of the court, the court fined the contemnor Kshs 50,000/=, in default one month's imprisonment, with warrants of arrest to issue.

Key legal issues

#
01

Applicable sentencing framework for contempt of court orders of the Environment and Land Court

Holding

The court may commit the contemnor to prison and attach his property under section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 3(1) caps imprisonment at six months; section 29 of the ELC Act allows a fine of up to Kshs 20 million or imprisonment up to two years or both

Reasoning

The court traced the statutory provisions, noting Order 40 Rule 3(1) prescribes a term not exceeding six months and that section 29 of the ELC Act would enhance the penalty. It adopted the reasoning in Doshi that section 29 may be utilised by the ELC, given the seriousness with which violations of proprietary/land orders are treated, though it retained discretion in sentencing.

02

Whether the contemnor's claim of ignorance of the orders mitigates liability

Holding

The claim was rejected; the ruling in the contempt application had already found the status quo orders were granted in the presence of the defendants' advocates, and advocate knowledge suffices

Reasoning

The court held that the ignorance issue had been determined by Angote J in the ruling of July 15, 2020, citing Shimmers Plaza Ltd v National Bank of Kenya Ltd, which establishes that a party's advocate being aware of the order is sufficient for contempt. The contemnor was found in contempt on February 12, 2009, July 29, 2019 and September 24, 2019 orders.

p. 4
03

Appropriate sentence on the facts, taking mitigation into account

Holding

A fine of Kshs 50,000/= in default one month's imprisonment, given the genuine apology, withdrawal of the advertisement, absence of prejudice and the contemnor's changed circumstances

Reasoning

The court accepted the apology as genuine, noted the contemnor withdrew the advertisement immediately upon learning of the orders, that no party suffered monetary loss or loss of the suit land, and that he was no longer employed by the 1st defendant. Against that, the court weighed the need to uphold the dignity of the court and rule of law, quoting Econet Wireless and the Indian Supreme Court in T. N. Gadavarman Thiru Mulpad.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The sentencing regime for civil contempt of injunction orders lies under section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
  • For contempt, it suffices that a party's advocate was aware of the court order; personal awareness by the party is not required
  • Every person against whom a court order is made is obliged to obey it unless and until it is discharged, even if he believes it to be irregular or void

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Engineer Jacob Kakundi, the former County Executive Committee member, Lands, Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development of the 1st defendant, is sentenced to a fine of Kshs 50,000/=, in default a term of one month in prison
  2. 2.Warrants of arrest to be issued and executed by the County Police Commander, Kitui County, to arrest and commit Engineer Jacob Kakundi to Kitui Prison unless he demonstrates that he has paid the fine

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(c)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3
  • Environment and Land Court Act, Act No. 19 of 2011section 29
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 159

Cases cited (4)

  • Ashock Labshanker Doshi & another v County Government of Mombasa & 3 others
    [2021] eKLR
  • Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & another
    [2005] KLR 828
  • T. N. Gadavarman Thiru Mulpad v Ashok Khot and anor
    [2006] 5 SCC
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act (Act No. 19 of 2011); Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "B2 Yatta Ranching Co-operative v Kitui County Government & 12 others (Environment & Land Case 21 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 339 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment (contempt application dated March 5, 2020 in pending suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/339/eng@2023-01-26

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