Trikuti Investments Limited v Alasow Hassan Mohammud & 4 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
E.O. Obaga
Judgment Date
October 15, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Trikuti Investments Limited v Alasow Hassan Mohammud & 4 others [2020] eKLR, detailing key legal findings and implications. Ideal for legal research and insights.

Case Brief: Trikuti Investments Limited v Alasow Hassan Mohammud & 4 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Trikuti Investments Limited v. Alasow Hassan Mohammud & Others
- Case Number: ELC Case Number 1532 of 2013
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Milimani, Republic of Kenya
- Date Delivered: 15th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): E.O. Obaga
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues addressed by the court include:
- Whether the Plaintiff, Trikuti Investments Limited, breached the court order dated 4th November 2014 by entering the suit property and undertaking construction activities.
- Whether the Plaintiff should be held in contempt of court for violating the aforementioned order.
- Whether the Plaintiff should be denied audience in court until the alleged contempt is purged.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Trikuti Investments Limited, filed a motion against several defendants, including Alasow Hassan Mohammud, Salat Saman Olow, Wang Wang Centre Limited, the Land Registrar Nairobi, and the National Land Commission. The case revolves around a parcel of land known as L.R No. 1/1330 and L.R No. 1/1331 (the suit property). The Plaintiff alleges that on 8th August 2020, the Defendants, through their agents, unlawfully entered the suit property and deposited construction materials, violating a court order that maintained the status quo regarding the property. The Plaintiff argues that this act constitutes contempt of court.

4. Procedural History:
The case has been ongoing since 2013, with various applications filed by the parties. The current application was filed on 13th August 2020 under a certificate of urgency. The court scheduled an inter-partes hearing for 16th September 2020. During this hearing, the court was informed that the Plaintiff had appointed a new advocate, and submissions were filed by the parties. The court reserved a ruling date, but upon review, the judge noted procedural irregularities regarding the Plaintiff's representation and the timing of the submissions.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the relevant orders issued on 4th November 2014, which mandated that no party should sell, transfer, or undertake new developments on the suit property until the case was resolved. The court emphasized that compliance with court orders is paramount to uphold the rule of law.
- Case Law: The court referenced prior cases that underscore the necessity of proving contempt through clear evidence of a breach. It acknowledged that previous rulings had established a framework for handling contempt applications, emphasizing the need for a holistic view of the circumstances surrounding alleged violations.
- Application: The court analyzed the evidence presented by the Applicant, including photographs and delivery notes, but found insufficient proof of a breach of the 2014 order. The court noted that the Plaintiff had authorized its agents to refurbish existing structures on the property, which did not constitute new construction. Furthermore, the court found that the Applicant's claims of invasion were not credible, as similar complaints had been made in the past without resolution.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application dated 13th August 2020, concluding that the Applicant failed to demonstrate any breach of the court order. The court determined that the Plaintiff should not be denied audience as the case had already been part-heard and needed to be concluded expeditiously. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to court orders while also ensuring that parties are not unjustly penalized without clear evidence of contempt.

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

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Trikuti Investments Limited, by dismissing the contempt application. The court emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate claims of contempt and reaffirmed the importance of expeditious hearings in ongoing cases. This decision has implications for how contempt of court is adjudicated, particularly regarding the necessity of clear and convincing evidence to support such claims.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Trikuti-Investments-Limited-v-Alasow-Hassan-Mohammud--4-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2277_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries