Gabriel Onsongo Okondo & 10 others v Sangiri Ole Kiok & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
Hon. Christine Ochieng
Judgment Date
October 21, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3

Case Brief: Gabriel Onsongo Okondo & 10 others v Sangiri Ole Kiok & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Gabriel Onsongo Okondo & Others v. Sangiri Ole Kiok & Others
- Case Number: ELC Case No. 74 of 2019
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Kajiado
- Date Delivered: 21st October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): Hon. Christine Ochieng
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court is tasked with determining:
- Whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to an injunction restraining the 3rd Plaintiff from trespassing on land parcel number Kajiado/Loodariak/123 pending the outcome of the suit.
- Whether the 3rd Plaintiff should be cited for contempt for violating the court's orders granted on 2nd March 2020.
- Who should bear the costs of the two applications.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, a group of twelve individuals including Gabriel Onsongo Okondo and others, are in a legal dispute with the 1st Defendant, Sangiri Ole Kiok, and two additional defendants: the Land Registrar Kajiado North and the Attorney General. The core of the dispute revolves around land parcel number Kajiado/Loodariak/123, which the 1st Defendant claims to own. The 3rd Plaintiff, Amos Lemangen Ole Katei, asserts that he is the registered owner of a neighboring parcel, Kajiado/Loodariak/2149, and denies any trespassing allegations. Tensions escalated when the 1st Defendant claimed the 3rd Plaintiff had grazed cattle on his land despite a court order prohibiting such actions.

4. Procedural History:
The case began with two Notice of Motion applications from the 1st Defendant. The first, dated 23rd December 2019, sought an injunction against the 3rd Plaintiff for trespassing, while the second, dated 14th July 2020, sought to hold the 3rd Plaintiff in contempt of court for violating an order made on 2nd March 2020. The 3rd Plaintiff opposed these applications, asserting his legal rights and compliance with court orders. The court considered the applications alongside affidavits and submissions from both parties.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court referenced Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act concerning injunctions and contempt of court. The requirements for proving contempt were highlighted, including the need for clarity in the order, knowledge of the order, breach of the order, and deliberate conduct.

- Case Law: The court cited *Giella v. Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358*, which established the principles for granting injunctions, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case. The case of *North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v. Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi (2016) eKLR* was also referenced regarding the elements required to prove civil contempt.

- Application: The court found that the 1st Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case against the 3rd Plaintiff, as both parties were registered proprietors of their respective lands and there was no clear boundary demarcation. The court determined that the 1st Defendant had not proven that the 3rd Plaintiff had violated the court's order or had acted in contempt, as the status quo was maintained with both parties occupying their respective lands.

6. Conclusion:
The court ruled against the 1st Defendant's applications, stating that he had not met the burden of proof required for both the injunction and contempt claims. The matter of boundary determination remained unresolved, and the court directed that the status quo be maintained until further proceedings.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this ruling, as the decision was unanimous from the presiding judge.

8. Summary:
The case concluded with the court rejecting the 1st Defendant's applications for an injunction and contempt against the 3rd Plaintiff. The ruling underscored the necessity for clear evidence in property disputes and the importance of maintaining the status quo until proper boundary determinations can be made. This case highlights the complexities involved in land ownership disputes in Kenya and reinforces the legal standards required for proving contempt of court.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Gabriel-Onsongo-Okondo--10-others-v-Sangiri-Ole-Kiok--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2617_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries