Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutContempt Application dated 22nd August 2024 (arising from ELCEP PET E001 of 2024)· [2024] KEELC 7107 (KLR)

Center for Litigation on Environment and Governance (CLEG) v Tasiir (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7107 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 October 2024
1,190 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Mombasa Environment and Land Court struck down a contempt application filed in a fresh file, ruling it belonged in the pending petition itself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Ainea Ragen, moved the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa by an application dated 22nd August 2024, brought under Sections 4(1) and 5 of the Contempt of Court Act and Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking a finding that Haji Mbarak Tasir was in contempt of orders issued on 12th June 2024 by Justice Nelly Matheka in Petition No. ELCEP PET E001 of 2024. Those orders had granted prohibitory and mandatory injunctions, including one directing tenants to vacate the building on Plot No. 1417 Mwembelegeza Scheme pursuant to a County Government of Mombasa notice dated 4th April 2024, pending determination of the petition. The applicant asserted that the orders were served on the respondent's advocate, physically served on the ground-floor tenants, and posted on the building, yet the respondent failed to comply. The respondent denied disobeying the orders and maintained that he had not contravened them. The court, however, did not reach the merits of the alleged contempt. Applying Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the sub judice principle as explained in Kenya Bankers Association v Kenya Revenue Authority and the Supreme Court's decision in Re the Interim Independent Electoral Commission, Matheka J held that the subject matter was directly and substantially in issue in the pending petition, in which the contempt should have been raised rather than in a fresh file. The application was struck off with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the contempt application is sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

The application is sub judice and was struck off

Reasoning

The court applied Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, finding the same parties were litigating over the same subject matter in the pending Petition No. ELCEP PET E001 of 2024. Citing Kenya Bankers Association v Kenya Revenue Authority, the court noted that sub judice concerns the 'matter in issue' rather than the prayers sought, and adopted the Supreme Court's approval of the test that a matter involves some right, duty or liability to be established by the court's determination. Since the contempt flowed from orders in that pending petition, it should have been raised there.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt proceedings arising from orders in a pending suit should be raised in that suit's file, and an application whose subject matter is directly and substantially in issue in a pending proceeding is sub judice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The contempt application is struck off with no orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 4(1) & 5 of the Contempt of Court Act, No. 46 of 2016; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A & 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Center for Litigation on Environment and Governance (CLEG) v Tasiir (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 7107 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Contempt Application dated 22nd August 2024 (arising from ELCEP PET E001 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/7107/eng@2024-10-30

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