Owino v Siololo & 4 others (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3207 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Narok court found three land defendants in contempt of an injunction and ordered them to pay Sh300,000 compensation plus costs — ignoring court orders is expensive.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Existence of a valid, unambiguous order capable of being obeyed
The court found the temporary injunction orders of 26th September 2024, issued 9th October 2024 with a penal notice, were clear and unambiguous and capable of execution
The court reviewed the ruling of 26th September 2024 and the order extracted on 9th October 2024 bearing a penal notice. No complaint of ambiguity was raised by the Defendants. The prerequisite of a clear and unambiguous order binding on the respondents was therefore satisfied.
Service and knowledge of the order
Service was proved by the affidavit of process server John Mwangi Hinga, was not disputed, and the Defendants also participated in the inter-parties hearing that produced the orders
The presumption arising from a process server's affidavit of service stands absent contest, per Shadrack Arap Baiywo v Bodi Bach. The Defendants' participation in the inter-parties hearing of the injunction application independently established their knowledge of the orders.
Whether the Defendants breached the order
The Defendants were in contempt; they did not deny disobedience but only disputed the photographs, and filed no contrary evidence
The Applicant attached photographs showing the Defendants and goons invading the land and driving away her cattle and employees. The Defendants, though filing a replying affidavit denying the allegations, produced no contrary evidence. Unrebutted allegations of continued interference with the suit properties established breach of the injunction.
Compensation and costs
The uncontroverted claim of Ksh 300,000/= for fodder purchased was awarded, and the Applicant was entitled to costs
Having found contempt, the court awarded the compensation sought on the basis that the Defendants did not dispute the Ksh 300,000/= claim in submissions, and applied the principle that costs follow the event against contemnors.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in civil contempt the applicant must prove the terms of the order, knowledge of those terms by the respondent, and failure to comply; willfulness and bad faith are then inferred unless rebutted
- A party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it; the remedy is to apply to discharge it
- Compliance with a court order is not optional even where review, variation or appeal is intended
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents are in contempt of the court orders given on 26th September 2024
- 2.The Defendants to purge the contempt, and in default be punished as provided by law (application allowed in terms of prayers 2, 3 and 4)
- 3.Compensation of Ksh 300,000/= to the Plaintiff/Applicant for loss incurred due to contempt of the orders of 26th September 2024
- 4.Costs of the application borne by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants/Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Owino v Siololo & 4 others (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3207 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3207/eng@2025-04-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.