Keekonyoikie Community Trust v Monik & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E486 of 2025) [2026] KECA 257 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal kept a community trust land deal agreement in place and dismissed all attempts to overturn or enforce it.
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 consent order of 16th July 2025 should be reviewed and set aside on the ground that counsel lacked material facts
- 2.Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents were guilty of contempt of the consent order of 16th July 2025
- 3.Whether the appeal should be struck out on the preliminary objection that the subject matter has ceased to exist and that the matter is sub judice
- 4.Whether the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal should be struck out on the ground that the appellant was the successful party before the ELC
Key legal issues
#Whether the consent order of 16th July 2025 could be set aside for lack of material facts
The application failed because no compelling evidence, and no affidavit from counsel, established that the consent was entered into without material facts
The court applied the settled principles from Diamond Trust Bank v Ply & Panels, Flora Wasike, NSSF v Mwalo and Asanyo v AG: a consent order recorded by counsel binds the parties and can only be set aside on limited grounds. Counsel are presumed to have instructions; in the modern era obtaining instructions takes only a phone call. Counsel who records a consent must explain to the court the circumstances under which it was made, and bare allegations of ignorance will not suffice. Prof. Ojienda swore no affidavit explaining the circumstances.
Whether the 1st and 2nd respondents were in contempt of the consent order
No finding of contempt: non-compliance was not shown to be wilful and the material fell short of the required threshold
While non-compliance with the order of 16th July 2025 was not in dispute, the court applied Mutitika v Baharini Farm on the heightened standard of proof in contempt proceedings, Carey v Laiken on the discretionary and last-resort nature of the contempt power, and Re Bramblevale on the need for satisfactory proof. The 1st respondent claimed he no longer held the provisional title, the 2nd respondent showed the subdivisions preceded the order, and no evidence supported the allegation that titles were backdated.
Whether the preliminary objection on jurisdiction and sub judice succeeded
The preliminary objection failed: the alleged surrender of title was a disputed factual issue unsuitable for a preliminary objection, and the appeal was not substantially the same as the pending petition
Relying on Mukisa Biscuits, the court held that a preliminary objection must rest on undisputed facts; the alleged surrender of the title was disputed and therefore a factual issue. Further, alteration of the subject matter does not terminate an appeal unless the party caused it, and the remedies available may simply be limited. The sub judice ground failed because the appeal arose from the ELC decision and was not substantially the same as High Court Constitutional Petition No. E481 of 2025.
Whether the appeal should be struck out because the appellant was the successful party below
The striking out application failed; a substantially successful party may still appeal aspects of a decision, and the trustee dispute required full investigation
The court acknowledged that the applicant before the ELC and the appellant before it were the same body and that the orders favoured it. However, a party dissatisfied with certain aspects of a decision may appeal that part notwithstanding substantial success. The dispute over who are the validly elected trustees was unresolved and could not be determined summarily on a striking-out application, which must rest on facts not requiring detailed investigation.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order made with the consent of counsel is binding and can only be set aside on the established grounds of fraud, collusion, agreement contrary to policy of the court, or consent given without sufficient material facts or in misapprehension, and bare allegations of ignorance of material facts will not suffice
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- The alteration of the subject matter of an appeal does not necessarily drive an aggrieved party from the seat of justice unless the party contributed to that state of affairs
- A party who substantially succeeded in a suit may still appeal against aspects of the decision with which it is dissatisfied
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the application dated 17th July 2025 seeking review and setting aside of the consent order of 16th July 2025
- 2.Dismissal of the application dated 1st September 2025 seeking committal of Moses Masek Monik and the Chief Land Registrar to civil jail and surrender of subdivision titles
- 3.Dismissal of the preliminary objection dated 16th October 2025
- 4.Dismissal of the application dated 17th July 2025 seeking striking out of the Notice of Appeal and Record of Appeal
- 5.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- On appeal from
- Environment and Land Court
- Kajiado Misc. Application No. E008 of 2025 (arising from ELC Suit No. 410 of 2025)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over decisions of the Environment and Land Court
Relief refused
#Review and setting aside of the consent order of 16th July 2025
No compelling evidence, including no affidavit from counsel, showing the consent was entered without material facts
Committal of the 1st and 2nd respondents for contempt
The threshold for contempt, requiring wilful and deliberate disobedience to a high standard of proof, was not met
Striking out of the appeal on the ground of sub judice
The subject matter of the appeal is not substantially the same as that of the pending constitutional petition
Striking out of the Notice and Record of Appeal because the appellant substantially succeeded below
A party dissatisfied with aspects of a decision may appeal notwithstanding substantial success, and the trustee dispute cannot be determined summarily
Costs
No order as to costs: "As none of the parties has wholly succeeded in these applications and preliminary objection, we make no order as to costs"
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.
Accordingly, we find no merit in and dismiss the application dated 17th July 2025.
Consequently, we dismiss the application dated 1st September 2025.
The preliminary objection fails and is dismissed.
In the premises, we dismiss the application dated 17th July 2025.
As none of the parties has wholly succeeded in these applications and preliminary objection, we make no order as to costs
Bare allegations that counsel or the client was not aware of the material facts will not sufice.
the mere fact that the subject matter of appeal has been altered does not necessarily drive an aggrieved party from the seat of justice unless it is shown that the party contributed to that state of afiairs
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment contains an evident typographical error in the date of the ELC ruling, rendering 2025 as '20205'
The judgment inconsistently renders the appellant's name, using both 'Keekonyoike' and 'Keekonyokie'
The consent order is described as requiring deposit by 18th July 2025, but the court elsewhere refers to 17th July 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keekonyoikie Community Trust v Monik & 2 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E486 of 2025) [2026] KECA 257 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal (from Kajiado Misc. Application No. E008 of 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/257/eng@2026-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.