Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment text provided· [2025] KEELC 2905 (KLR)

Maritim & 4 others v Samoei & 4 others (Environment & Land Case E053 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 2905 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 March 2025
CYC. K. Yano
1,580 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

An Eldoret land court refused to jail anyone for contempt because a ruling that simply dismissed a case contains no order anyone could disobey.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st to 3rd Defendants moved the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret by Notice of Motion dated 23rd January 2025 seeking orders that they continue to utilise land parcel PIONEER/NGERIA BLOCK 1 (EATEC) 1980 pursuant to a ruling delivered on 19th January 2023, and that the 3rd and 5th Plaintiffs together with Daniel Kipkemboi Kemei and Abraham Cheruiyot Kemei be committed to civil jail and fined Kshs. 200,000/= for contempt, alleging the Respondents had forcefully evicted them, trespassed and demolished their properties in defiance of the ruling. The Respondents did not respond and the application was canvassed by written submissions. The court framed three issues: service/awareness of the orders, contempt, and entitlement to relief. Relying on Gatharia Mutiki v Baharini Farm, the court restated the standard of proof in contempt as higher than balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt, and citing the Wambora decision, held that the court must be satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the alleged contemnor acted with knowledge of the order. The court found the 19th January 2023 ruling, delivered by Obaga, J, merely dismissed the Plaintiffs' application dated 11th October 2022 with costs; no positive orders were issued against the Respondents, and there was no evidence of service. Accordingly contempt was not established and the application was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs since the Respondents did not participate.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondents were guilty of contempt of the ruling of 19th January 2023

Holding

No - the 19th January 2023 ruling dismissed the Plaintiffs' application with costs only; no positive order was issued against the Respondents and none was shown to have been served on them

Reasoning

The court traced the earlier application dated 11th October 2022, dismissed by Obaga, J, and observed the record does not show the Respondents were present or served with the ruling. It held that contempt requires a precise order forbidding or commanding an act, knowledge of it, and proof beyond balance of probabilities but below criminal standard. None of these was satisfied.

p. 3
02

Standard and threshold of proof in contempt proceedings

Holding

Applied the settled standard from Gatharia Mutiki: proof higher than balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt, and full knowledge or notice of the order

Reasoning

Because contempt is of criminal character and may involve loss of liberty, the threshold is high. Citing Justus Kariuki Mate & Another v Martin Nyaga Wambora, the court held it must be satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt that the alleged contemnor acted with full knowledge or notice of the order. The Applicants failed to establish notice.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The standard of proof in contempt is higher than balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt
  • Contempt requires proof of full knowledge or notice of the existence of the order allegedly breached
  • A dismissal with costs only contains no positive orders capable of being disobeyed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of motion dated 23rd January 2025 dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 40

Cases cited (8)

  • Stewart Robertson –Vs- Her Majesty’s Advocate
    2007, HCAC63
  • Board of Governors Moi High School Kabarak –Vs- Malcolm Bell & Another
    Supreme Court Petition No.6 & 7 of 2013
  • Heelmore vs Smith (2)
    (1886) L.R 35 C.D 455
  • Johnson –vs- Grant
    1923 SC 789
  • Hardkinson –vs- Hadkinson
    (1952) ALL ER 576
  • Gatharia Mutika & others –vs- Baharini Farm Limited
    (1985) KLR 227
  • Justus Kariuki Mate & Another vs Martin Nyaga Wambora & another
    C.A No. 24/14/KECA 376 (KLR)
  • Civil Application No. Nai. 39 of 1990
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disobedience of its orders of 19th January 2023

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maritim & 4 others v Samoei & 4 others (Environment & Land Case E053 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 2905 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/2905/eng@2025-03-27

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.