Annah Jepkemoi Barmasai v Stanley Kiwalei Chebundo & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Explore the case summary of Annah Jepkemoi Barmasai v Stanley Kiwalei Chebundo & 2 others [2020] eKLR, highlighting key legal principles and judgement outcomes.

Case Brief: Annah Jepkemoi Barmasai v Stanley Kiwalei Chebundo & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Annah Jepkemoi Barmasai v. Stanley Kiwalei Chebundo & Others
- Case Number: E & L NO 018 OF 2020
- Court: Environment Court of Kenya at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: June 4, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. M. A. Odeny
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court must resolve whether the defendants, Stanley Kiwalei Chebundo, Moses Kigen, and Vincent Kimurto, are in contempt of court for disobeying the orders issued on April 9, 2020, which restrained them from encroaching on the plaintiff's property.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Annah Jepkemoi Barmasai, initiated this case against the defendants regarding property located at Kibonge Settlement Scheme Plot 1. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants disobeyed court orders by invading the property and planting crops, despite a restraining order prohibiting such actions. The plaintiff's allegations were supported by photographic evidence and police reports documenting the invasion.

4. Procedural History:
The plaintiff filed an application on April 29, 2020, seeking to hold the defendants in contempt for violating the court's orders. The court had issued specific directives on April 9, 2020, which included a temporary injunction against the defendants. The application was to be canvassed through written submissions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the court reserved its ruling for May 28, 2020.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court relied on the principles of contempt of court, which require proof of the order's terms, knowledge of these terms by the alleged contemnor, and failure to comply with the order. Relevant statutes included the Environment and Land Court Act, which prescribes penalties for contempt.
- Case Law: The court cited several precedents, including the case of *Abida Werimba Mwaniki & Others (2017) eKLR*, which emphasized that actions contrary to a court's order do not constitute maintenance of the status quo. The case of *Shimmers Plaza Ltd v. National Bank of Kenya [2015] eKLR* was also referenced, which clarified that personal service of an order is not always necessary if the respondent was aware of it.
- Application: The court found that the defendants were served with the orders and did not dispute this fact. The evidence of planting crops after the issuance of the restraining order was deemed a clear violation. The court concluded that the defendants acted willfully in disobeying the court's orders.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled that the defendants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the orders issued on April 9, 2020. They were ordered to appear in court within 14 days to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for their actions.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The Environment Court of Kenya found the defendants in contempt for violating a restraining order concerning property rights. This case underscores the importance of adhering to court orders and the legal consequences of contempt, reinforcing the authority of judicial decisions in civil matters. The ruling serves as a reminder that parties must comply with court orders, regardless of their personal grievances, and follow due process for contesting such orders.