Charles Asikowa Okolo v Emkos Company Limited [2015] KECA 27 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal refused to let a man harvest maize he planted in defiance of court orders, ruling courts will never help someone break the law.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant should be granted leave to enter the suit land and harvest the maize crop he planted thereon pending the lodging and hearing of an intended appeal
- 2.Whether a stay of execution of the High Court's dismissal of 22nd October 2014 should issue pending the intended appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether equitable relief can be granted to a party who obtained possession of the suit land's benefit in defiance of court orders
The court refused to permit the applicant to harvest the maize he planted after being restrained by three court orders, holding that doing so would assist his disobedience.
The applicant knew of the injunction orders of 29th January 2014 and 31st March 2014, which were served on him, yet he ploughed the suit land and planted maize in contumacious disobedience. Having been restrained by three orders, his application to harvest the crop was an affront to the rule of law, an abuse of court process and against public policy, and could not be entertained.
Legal principles established
#- A court cannot lend its assistance to a party who seeks relief that would enable him to continue disobeying clear court orders; such an application is an abuse of process and contrary to public policy.
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 24th October 2014
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Kitale
- H.C.C.S. No. 31 of 2014
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction under Sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act in support of an intended appeal
Relief refused
#Leave to enter the suit land and harvest the maize crop pending the intended appeal
The applicant planted the crop in contumacious disobedience of court orders; granting leave would assist him to continue disobeying court orders
Stay of execution of the High Court order of 22nd October 2014 pending the intended appeal
Refused for the same reason - the application amounted to an affront to the rule of law and an abuse of process
Costs
Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is not only an affront to the rule of law and an abuse of the court process but also against public policy for any court to, as it were, assist a party to continue disobeying clear court orders.
Consequently we dismiss this application with costs to the respondent.
Despite those clear orders which were duly served upon him, the applicant ploughed the suit land and planted maize on it.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Charles Asikowa Okolo v Emkos Company Limited [2015] KECA 27 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Civil Application No. 69 of 2014 (UR No. 48/14). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2015/27/eng@2015-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.