The application before court is dated 20th January 2025. It seeks orders that the 1st Respondent herein, Willy Kimagut Rop be committed to civil jail for contempt of court orders issued on the 15th of February, 2022 as well as the 22nd February, 2022 for a period of six months. Alternatively, the court does impose a fine of Kshs.5,000,000/= upon Willy Kimagut Rop or such other amount the court deems fit.
The Officer Commanding Nakuru West/Kaptembwo Police Station to enforce the orders. Costs of this application be borne by the Respondents.
The application is based on grounds that the Applicant herein moved the court vide a plaint dated 29 1h June 2021 for permanent injunctive orders against the Respondent. On the 15th of February, 2022 this Honorable Court made orders that pending the inter-parties hearing and determination of this suit a prohibition order be and is hereby issued prohibiting any dealings with the parcel of land known as Nakuru Municipality Block 17/90 other than those done at the instance of the Plaintiff/Applicant and that pending the hearing of this suit a permanent injunctive order be and is hereby issued restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent by himself, representatives, servants, agents and/or any other person acting under his instruction or his interests from entering, occupying, possessing, dealing remaining, trespassing, or in any other manner interfering with all the parcel of land known as Nakuru /Municipality /block 17/90".
Further, following an application by the Plaintiff dated 16th February 2022 this Honorable court on the 22nd February, 2022 made an order that the Officer Commanding Nakuru Police Station ensure that there is no activity, development on, entry into, construction on the suit property known as Nakuru Municipality Block 17/90 by anyone other than the Plaintiff so as to give effect enforce, ensure compliance with this honorable court's orders issued on the July 2021. "
The Plaintiff endeavored to serve the 1st Respondent with orders of the court thereby making the Respondent fully aware.
The plaintiff contends that despite the existence of the prohibitive and injunctive orders of 15th February 2021 as well as the order for enforcement of 22nd February, 2022, and despite additionally, the Ist Respondent's full knowledge, he has completely ignored the same and has not only entered the property but also constructed on the same.
Consequently, the suspected contemnor has deliberately challenged the dignity of the court, and its authority, and must be held to be in contempt, of the orders issued by this court.
No explanation has been given by the suspected contemnor as to why he, alongside his agents and people working under him have defied the orders of the court. The suspected contemnor is not willing to obey the law and by extension, the courts of this country and therefore, should be committed to jail. Unless the court intervenes with alacrity, the dignity and authority of the court shall be denigrated.
The suspected contemnor has no regard to the authority of this Honorable Court and his actions are blatantly contemptuous. It is in the interest of justice that this matter is urgently heard and determined to prevent further violation of the constitution by the suspected contemnor.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Anand Kantilal Shah where he states that this court issued a permanent injunctive order as against the 1st respondent pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The applicant further made an application for the enforcement of the orders.
The respondent has completely ignored this order by entering the land and constructing a structure. The plaintiff states that a new structure and a new container have been placed on the land. According to the applicant this is a challenge to the dignity of the court and therefore the contemnor must be punished. The alleged contemnor should be punished for disobeying the law. The office of the Director of Public Prosecution has been notified.
The 1st defendant raised a preliminary objection that the injunction orders lapsed by operation of the law on 16th February 2023 and 23rd February 2023 as per Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In the replying affidavit of Willy Kimagut Rop, he states that no application for extension of injunction was ever made and therefore the orders sought to be enforced expired. Moreover, the respondent denies an occupation of the suit property either by himself or relatives or servants. The respondent denies linkage with the persons in possession of the property. In a nutshell, the respondent denies allegation by the applicant and prays that the application be dismissed.
I have considered the application for committal to jail of Willy Kimagut Rop for contempt of court and do find the applicant has not demonstrated that it is the respondent in possession of the suit parcel of land. It is the applicant word against the respondent’s that the respondent has entered the land whereas the respondent denies it. The photos annexed in the supplementary affidavit are not dated and therefore it cant be discerned when the same were taken; moreover, the applicant has not shown the court the status of the land at the time of the court order vis- a vis the current status which appear to be depicted by the photos. I do find that the applicant has not discharged the burden of proof. The application is not merited and is dismissed with costs.
The Officer Commanding Nakuru West/Kaptembwo Police Station to enforce the orders. Costs of this application be borne by the Respondents.
The application is based on grounds that the Applicant herein moved the court vide a plaint dated 29 1h June 2021 for permanent injunctive orders against the Respondent. On the 15th of February, 2022 this Honorable Court made orders that pending the inter-parties hearing and determination of this suit a prohibition order be and is hereby issued prohibiting any dealings with the parcel of land known as Nakuru Municipality Block 17/90 other than those done at the instance of the Plaintiff/Applicant and that pending the hearing of this suit a permanent injunctive order be and is hereby issued restraining the 1st Defendant/Respondent by himself, representatives, servants, agents and/or any other person acting under his instruction or his interests from entering, occupying, possessing, dealing remaining, trespassing, or in any other manner interfering with all the parcel of land known as Nakuru /Municipality /block 17/90".
Further, following an application by the Plaintiff dated 16th February 2022 this Honorable court on the 22nd February, 2022 made an order that the Officer Commanding Nakuru Police Station ensure that there is no activity, development on, entry into, construction on the suit property known as Nakuru Municipality Block 17/90 by anyone other than the Plaintiff so as to give effect enforce, ensure compliance with this honorable court's orders issued on the July 2021. "
The Plaintiff endeavored to serve the 1st Respondent with orders of the court thereby making the Respondent fully aware.
The plaintiff contends that despite the existence of the prohibitive and injunctive orders of 15th February 2021 as well as the order for enforcement of 22nd February, 2022, and despite additionally, the Ist Respondent's full knowledge, he has completely ignored the same and has not only entered the property but also constructed on the same.
Consequently, the suspected contemnor has deliberately challenged the dignity of the court, and its authority, and must be held to be in contempt, of the orders issued by this court.
No explanation has been given by the suspected contemnor as to why he, alongside his agents and people working under him have defied the orders of the court. The suspected contemnor is not willing to obey the law and by extension, the courts of this country and therefore, should be committed to jail. Unless the court intervenes with alacrity, the dignity and authority of the court shall be denigrated.
The suspected contemnor has no regard to the authority of this Honorable Court and his actions are blatantly contemptuous. It is in the interest of justice that this matter is urgently heard and determined to prevent further violation of the constitution by the suspected contemnor.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Anand Kantilal Shah where he states that this court issued a permanent injunctive order as against the 1st respondent pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The applicant further made an application for the enforcement of the orders.
The respondent has completely ignored this order by entering the land and constructing a structure. The plaintiff states that a new structure and a new container have been placed on the land. According to the applicant this is a challenge to the dignity of the court and therefore the contemnor must be punished. The alleged contemnor should be punished for disobeying the law. The office of the Director of Public Prosecution has been notified.
The 1st defendant raised a preliminary objection that the injunction orders lapsed by operation of the law on 16th February 2023 and 23rd February 2023 as per Order 40 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In the replying affidavit of Willy Kimagut Rop, he states that no application for extension of injunction was ever made and therefore the orders sought to be enforced expired. Moreover, the respondent denies an occupation of the suit property either by himself or relatives or servants. The respondent denies linkage with the persons in possession of the property. In a nutshell, the respondent denies allegation by the applicant and prays that the application be dismissed.
I have considered the application for committal to jail of Willy Kimagut Rop for contempt of court and do find the applicant has not demonstrated that it is the respondent in possession of the suit parcel of land. It is the applicant word against the respondent’s that the respondent has entered the land whereas the respondent denies it. The photos annexed in the supplementary affidavit are not dated and therefore it cant be discerned when the same were taken; moreover, the applicant has not shown the court the status of the land at the time of the court order vis- a vis the current status which appear to be depicted by the photos. I do find that the applicant has not discharged the burden of proof. The application is not merited and is dismissed with costs.