Cherotich Kiprono Ruto v Reuben Kipngetich & 4 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
D. O. Ohungo
Judgment Date
October 29, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2

Case Brief: Cherotich Kiprono Ruto v Reuben Kipngetich & 4 others [2020] eKLR


1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Cherotich Kiprono Ruto v. Reuben Kipngetich & Others
- Case Number: ELCC No. 321 of 2015
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Date Delivered: 29th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): D. O. Ohungo
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues the court must resolve include whether the defendants willfully disobeyed the court's orders issued on 8th November 2016, and whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against the defendants regarding the use of the suit property.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Cherotich Kiprono Ruto, initiated the case against Reuben Kipngetich and four other defendants regarding a dispute over a parcel of land registered as L.R. Molo South/Keringet Block 2/114. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants have violated previous court orders by felling trees and erecting permanent structures on the disputed land. The defendants, on the other hand, claim they were unaware of any court orders prior to being served with the application for contempt.

4. Procedural History:
The plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion on 20th April 2020, seeking orders for the committal of the defendants to prison for contempt of court, a permanent injunction against further actions on the suit property, and costs of the application. The application was supported by an affidavit from the plaintiff, while the defendants opposed it through a replying affidavit. The case was subsequently canvassed through written submissions.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered relevant statutes, including section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, which grants the court the power to punish for violations of its orders, and section 68(3) of the Land Registration Act, which stipulates that an inhibition does not bind land until registered.
- Case Law: The court referenced several cases, including Fred Matiang’i v. Miguna Miguna & Others [2018] eKLR, which emphasized the binding nature of court orders, and Mutitika v. Baharini Farm Limited [1985] KLR 229, which established the higher standard of proof required in contempt proceedings. The court also cited Kiru Tea Factory Company Ltd v. Stephen Maina Githiga & 14 Others [2019] eKLR, affirming that willful disobedience of court orders must be clear and precise.
- Application: The court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently demonstrated willful disobedience by the defendants, as the clarity of the original order regarding the status quo was ambiguous. Additionally, there was no evidence presented to show that the order of inhibition had been registered, which is necessary for it to bind the land. The court also determined that a permanent injunction was not warranted due to the absence of special circumstances.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 20th April 2020, ruling that the plaintiff had not established contempt of court by the defendants. The court emphasized the importance of clarity in court orders and the need for special circumstances to justify a permanent injunction. The ruling underscores the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements in civil matters.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in this case, as it was a ruling by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court ruled in favor of the defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's application for contempt and a permanent injunction. The decision highlighted the importance of clear court orders and the procedural requirements for establishing contempt, reaffirming the rule of law in civil proceedings. The court directed that the parties should expedite the hearing of the main suit, reflecting the need for timely resolution of land disputes in Kenya.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Cherotich-Kiprono-Ruto-v-Reuben-Kipngetich--4-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2701_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries