Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment & Land Case 388 of 2017· [2023] KEELC 20437 (KLR)

Mungai & another v Cheska Agencies Limited & another

Environment and Land Court
28 September 2023
LMLUCY N. MBUGUA
1,031 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court found company directors in contempt for selling land under a court-ordered ban, but postponed punishment pending their explanation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, who had contracted in September 2016 to buy LR Number Nairobi/Block 129/289 from the 1st Defendant for Ksh 7.5 million (paying a Ksh 2.5 million deposit), moved the court by Notice of Motion dated June 2, 2023 seeking a finding that the 1st Defendant's directors, Munira Mwinyi alias Munira Mwinyi Baraka and Prof Dr Mwinyikione Mwinyiha, were in contempt of injunctive orders issued on June 15, 2017 restraining disposal of the suit property, and that they be sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The plaintiffs alleged that the 1st Defendant discharged the charge, sold and transferred the property to the 2nd Defendant on November 18, 2020 while the orders were in force. The 1st Defendant opposed, contending the interim orders were conditional on the plaintiffs depositing Ksh 5 million within three days and stood vacated on June 18, 2017 for non-payment, and that the plaintiffs came to court with unclean hands. The court held that the interim orders had been extended on several dates with the payment timelines enlarged, so the deposit was made in time and the orders were later confirmed by the ruling of February 23, 2018. Finding subsisting restraining orders and non-disclosure by the 1st Defendant, the court found the directors in contempt, issued a Notice to Show Cause why they should not be punished, and condemned the 1st Defendant to pay the costs of the application. The application was partially allowed; immediate sentencing was not granted.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the interim orders of June 15, 2017 stood vacated for non-payment of the Ksh 5 million deposit within 3 days

Holding

The orders did not lapse because the court extended them on various dates and enlarged the timelines for payment

Reasoning

The record shows the interim orders of June 15, 2017 were extended on June 16, June 29, July 11, 2017 and November 6, 2017. Since the timelines for payment were enlarged by these extensions, the plaintiffs' deposit of Ksh 5 million was within time, so the orders remained in force and were later confirmed by the ruling of February 23, 2018.

p. 2
02

Whether the 1st Defendant was in contempt by discharging, selling and transferring the suit property while injunctive orders were in force

Holding

Yes, the 1st Defendant is in contempt of the restraining orders

Reasoning

There existed subsisting orders restraining the 1st Defendant from disposing of the suit property to a third party. Despite being active in the proceedings, it failed to disclose the transfer to the court, which led to further orders of June 3, 2021 on rental income. The discharge, sale and transfer to the 2nd Defendant contravened the orders.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Court orders are to be obeyed; disobedience of injunctive orders constitutes contempt

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The directors of the 1st defendant are found to be in contempt of the injunctive orders issued by the court
  2. 2.A Notice to Show Cause is issued to the said directors to appear before the court and explain why they should not be punished for contempt
  3. 3.The 1st defendant is condemned to pay costs of the application
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a suit relating to land (LR Number Nairobi/Block 129/289), including contempt of its own orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mungai & another v Cheska Agencies Limited & another", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case 388 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/20437/eng@2023-09-28

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