Keesi & 2 others (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Jonathan Keesi Ngunzi - Deceased) v Keesi & 9 others (Environment & Land Case 337 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 320 (KLR)

The court traced the order of 30/01/2019 to the ruling of 20/12/2018 allowing prayers 3 and 6 of the application dated 26/02/2014. The injunction restrained the 5th and 9th Defendants from trespassing on, constructing on or dealing with Kilala/Kaumoni/386 and 323. The failure to indicate that prayers 4 and 5 were declined did not invalidate the order. The prior finding on non-service related to the order of 26th February 2013, not the order of 20/12/2018, and the court had found the Applicant had knowledge or notice of the order.

The ruling of 29th May 2021 stayed the proceedings for 90 days to enable the Plaintiffs to substitute a deceased administrator of the estate; it did not stay the injunctive order. Citing Black's Law Dictionary, the court held that stay of proceedings suspends proceedings, and does not nullify what was done prior to the stay, so the injunction remained operative and effective pending hearing and determination of the suit.

The Applicant argued that the contempt application filed more than six months after the alleged contempt was a nullity. The Respondents relied on the High Court decision in Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General declaring the Contempt of Court Act unconstitutional. The court held the Act inoperative from the date of that judgment, so the six-month limitation no longer applied, and the contempt application was not time barred.

The court found the Applicant was accorded a fair hearing in the contempt proceedings, having filed a replying affidavit and submissions. There is no prescribed punishment for contempt; sentencing is discretionary and may take forms other than committal to civil jail. The suit remains pending and the Applicant will still be heard. No evidence supported the claim that his property rights under Article 40 would be violated, that provision not extending to illegally acquired property.

Applying the Supreme Court's elements for joinder of an interested party, the court found that beyond the marriage certificate, the Applicant did not demonstrate an identifiable stake, did not set out the case and submissions she would make, and her case would merely replicate the 9th Defendant's. She did not demonstrate prejudice from non-joinder, nor explain the inordinate delay in filing the application.