Esther Langat Chumo has come to this court praying that Charles Koech and Joseph Koech be summoned to show cause why they should not be committed to Civil Jail for disobeying Court orders of 24th November 2023 and that the defendant /Respondents Charles Koech and Joseph Koech be committed to civil jail, for a period of six months, for contempt of court. In the alternative, the court does impose a fine of Kshs1,000,000 upon each of the Defendant/Respondents Charles Koech and Joseph Koech or such am amount the court deems fit. Costs of this application be borne by the Defendants/Respondents Charles Koech and Joseph Koech.
The application is based on grounds that the respondents have disobeyed the court order made on 23rd October 2023. Moreover, on 24th November 2023 the court made an order that the plaintiff to remain in possession of the suit land and was barred from any act of wastage. The matter was fastracked for hearing. The defendant have disobeyed the court order by entering the land clearing vegetation uprooting the line fence of Key Apples.
They have chased the firm boy and destroyed windows of the structures on the property. They have grown beans on the land. The respondents were served but they continue to disobey the court order. The applicant has annexed a copy of the court order with penal notice. The applicant has annexed photos of tilled land, broken structures, felled trees, and bean plants growing on the land.
The respondent have respondent vide affidavit dated 27th August 2024 sworn by the 1st defendant on his behalf and of the 2nd respondent. The respondents state that they were never served with the ruling and order of the court as alleged. The affidavit of service attached by the Applicant indicates that the order was served upon the firm of E.K Koskei. However, at the time of purported service, the advocate on record was not practicing-a fact that t was not aware of until later. He depones that the advocate formerly on record. Mr\" E.K Koskei, had been temporarily suspended from the roll of advocates, a fact he communicated to the respondent only after the service of the said application. That as a suspended advocate, Mr. E.K Koskei lacked the capacity to receive documents on his behalf, and therefore the alleged service of the court order on him was not effective service. Therefore that this application is founded on contempt of orders that were allegedly served upon an advocate who was no longer practicing as such, thereby rendering the service invalid. The respondents deny being in contempt but assert their right to the property by stating that the court order did not mandate the eviction of the beneficiaries of the estate of Alfred Kipkoech Klrul, from the parcel of land. That their family has continuously enjoyed quiet possession of the land, which is their rightful inheritance.
It has been stated elsewhere that compliance with court orders is an issue of fundamental concern for a society that seeks to base itself on the rule of law. The Constitution states that the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution are foundational values of our society. It vests the judicial authority of the state in the courts and requires other organs of state to assist and protect the courts. It gives everyone the right to have legal disputes resolved in the courts or other independent and impartial tribunals. Failure to enforce court orders effectively has the potential to undermine confidence in recourse to law as an instrument to resolve civil disputes and may thus impact negatively on the rule of law.
I have considered the application supporting affidavit, replying affidavit, supplementary affidavit and submissions on record and do find that there is sufficient evidence that the respondents have breached the court orders made on 23rd October 2023 and 24th November, 2023 by gaining possession of the property and tilling the land and planting beans and dispossessing the applicant. There is evidence of felled trees and broken windows. Court orders are not poems, fiction or lullabies to sooth parties they must be obeyed by all and sundry and have serious legal consequences if not obeyed. The respondents have degenerated into contemnors and ought to be punished for that. I do find that the respondents are in contempt of court order that they be imprisoned for 3 months with an alternative fine of Kshs200,000. Any produce on the ground should not be harvested by the respondents but should be forfeited to the applicant. It is so ordered.
Ruling dated signed and delivered electronically this 26th day of September 2024.
The application is based on grounds that the respondents have disobeyed the court order made on 23rd October 2023. Moreover, on 24th November 2023 the court made an order that the plaintiff to remain in possession of the suit land and was barred from any act of wastage. The matter was fastracked for hearing. The defendant have disobeyed the court order by entering the land clearing vegetation uprooting the line fence of Key Apples.
They have chased the firm boy and destroyed windows of the structures on the property. They have grown beans on the land. The respondents were served but they continue to disobey the court order. The applicant has annexed a copy of the court order with penal notice. The applicant has annexed photos of tilled land, broken structures, felled trees, and bean plants growing on the land.
The respondent have respondent vide affidavit dated 27th August 2024 sworn by the 1st defendant on his behalf and of the 2nd respondent. The respondents state that they were never served with the ruling and order of the court as alleged. The affidavit of service attached by the Applicant indicates that the order was served upon the firm of E.K Koskei. However, at the time of purported service, the advocate on record was not practicing-a fact that t was not aware of until later. He depones that the advocate formerly on record. Mr\" E.K Koskei, had been temporarily suspended from the roll of advocates, a fact he communicated to the respondent only after the service of the said application. That as a suspended advocate, Mr. E.K Koskei lacked the capacity to receive documents on his behalf, and therefore the alleged service of the court order on him was not effective service. Therefore that this application is founded on contempt of orders that were allegedly served upon an advocate who was no longer practicing as such, thereby rendering the service invalid. The respondents deny being in contempt but assert their right to the property by stating that the court order did not mandate the eviction of the beneficiaries of the estate of Alfred Kipkoech Klrul, from the parcel of land. That their family has continuously enjoyed quiet possession of the land, which is their rightful inheritance.
It has been stated elsewhere that compliance with court orders is an issue of fundamental concern for a society that seeks to base itself on the rule of law. The Constitution states that the rule of law and supremacy of the Constitution are foundational values of our society. It vests the judicial authority of the state in the courts and requires other organs of state to assist and protect the courts. It gives everyone the right to have legal disputes resolved in the courts or other independent and impartial tribunals. Failure to enforce court orders effectively has the potential to undermine confidence in recourse to law as an instrument to resolve civil disputes and may thus impact negatively on the rule of law.
I have considered the application supporting affidavit, replying affidavit, supplementary affidavit and submissions on record and do find that there is sufficient evidence that the respondents have breached the court orders made on 23rd October 2023 and 24th November, 2023 by gaining possession of the property and tilling the land and planting beans and dispossessing the applicant. There is evidence of felled trees and broken windows. Court orders are not poems, fiction or lullabies to sooth parties they must be obeyed by all and sundry and have serious legal consequences if not obeyed. The respondents have degenerated into contemnors and ought to be punished for that. I do find that the respondents are in contempt of court order that they be imprisoned for 3 months with an alternative fine of Kshs200,000. Any produce on the ground should not be harvested by the respondents but should be forfeited to the applicant. It is so ordered.
Ruling dated signed and delivered electronically this 26th day of September 2024.