SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

West End Butchery Limited v Benedict Muimi Mungithya & another Interested Parties Florence Akoth Odhiambo & 6 others [2018] KEELC 618 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 618 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
618
Citation
[2018] KEELC 618 (KLR)
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLand DisputePostureApplication for contempt and orders to preserve status quoCoramO.A. ANGOTE
The Application is dismissed with no order as to costs, as the Respondents and Interested Parties are not in contempt of the court's orders of July 27, 2018.

Facts

The Plaintiff, West End Butchery Limited, filed an application seeking orders against the Respondents and Interested Parties for contempt of court for engaging in construction, sub-division, alienation and general dealing with the suit property after a court order on July 27, 2018. The Plaintiff alleged ongoing constructions and dealings on the property despite the court order.

Issues

  • Contempt of court for ongoing construction and dealings on the suit property
  • Preservation of the status quo and orders to prevent encroachment

Reasoning

The court found that the Respondents and Interested Parties were not in contempt of the court's orders of July 27, 2018, as the structures on the suit property were not completed before the order was issued. The court also declined to grant orders allowing the Plaintiff to put its agents on the suit land.

Outcome

Application dismissed with no order as to costs

⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case