Hasmo Agencies Limited v National Social Security Fund (Environment & Land Case E052 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1284 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court found four NSSF officials in contempt for blocking property access despite court orders, and they now face sentencing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to punish for contempt
The court has express jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, concurring with Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act
The court held that Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act expressly clothes the ELC with jurisdiction to punish for contempt, in concurrence with Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, which vests superior courts with powers analogous to the High Court of Justice in England. Section 29 prescribes the offence and penalties for disobeying orders of the court.
Whether the Defendant's officers were in contempt
The named officers were in contempt; the orders were clear and unambiguous, they had notice, and they deliberately breached them
The court found the orders clear and unambiguous; an Affidavit of Service dated 18th August 2023 established notice and was not challenged; photographs showed vehicles blocking the entrance; and the Defendant did not deny blocking it, only contending the orders were incapable of compliance because the plaintiff was not in possession. The court held a party cannot abrogate the mandate of interpreting orders; any challenge should be by application to vary or set aside.
Whether disputes over possession and applicability of the orders could be raised in contempt proceedings
No; such arguments must be raised in an application to vary or set aside the orders
The court noted that while parties robustly argued about the applicability of the orders and who was in possession, those arguments were not for determination at that stage. The only issue was whether the officers were in contempt. A party who believes orders were wrongly issued must move the court to vary, discharge or set them aside, not simply disobey them.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Until a court order is set aside, discharged or varied, it must be obeyed; a party cannot abrogate the mandate of interpreting the court's orders
- Three elements of civil contempt must be established: a clear and unequivocal order, actual knowledge of it, and intentional breach
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant's Managing Trustee David Koros, Head of Legal Hellen C. Koech, Property Manager Obed Mbuvi and Head of Security Isaac Tuei Koskei are found to be in contempt of the orders of the court of 14th and 15th August 2023
- 2.The named contemnors to appear before the court in person for mitigation and sentencing
- 3.The Defendant to pay the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Hasmo Agencies Limited v National Social Security Fund (Environment & Land Case E052 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 1284 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the excerpt (Environment and Land Court, Nairobi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1284/eng@2024-03-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.