Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 3561 (KLR)

Morjaria & 2 others v Nairobi City County (Environment & Land Case E110 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3561 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 January 2025
JKJ G Kemei
2,508 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court found two Nairobi County officials guilty of disobeying a court order, giving them 20 days to comply or face civil jail.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicants moved the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi by a notice of motion dated 11/11/24 under Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking to cite the County Secretary of Nairobi City County and the County Executive Committee Member for Built Environment and Urban Planning for contempt of orders issued on 26/10/23 restraining construction, taking of possession and granting of third-party access to LR No 209/13426, and seeking their committal to civil jail. The Respondent, through a replying affidavit sworn by the County Secretary, denied any involvement in the construction, faulted the Applicants for adducing no evidence linking the County to the works, and contended the orders were unenforceable because the developments were undertaken by third parties. The court framed two issues: whether the Respondent was in contempt of the orders of 26/10/23, and whether the named officials should be punished. Applying the four-element test for contempt and the Mutitika standard of proof, the court found the orders clear, served, and breached: the Respondent's own defence of 11/12/23 - pleaded after the orders - admitted ownership, possession, fencing and construction, and parties are bound by their pleadings. The court found Godfrey Akumali and Patrick Mbogo in contempt, directed them to purge the contempt within 20 days, and in default issued a notice to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail, appearing on 27/2/25. Costs were awarded to the Applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Respondent was in contempt of the orders of 26/10/23

Holding

The Respondent was in contempt; the orders were clear, served, and the Respondent's own defence admitted possession, fencing and construction after the orders were issued.

Reasoning

The elements of contempt were satisfied: the orders were unambiguous, issued in the presence of the Respondent's counsel and served. The Respondent's defence dated 11/12/23, after the orders, admitted it was the registered owner, in possession, fencing the land and carrying out construction. Its photographs corroborated its pleadings, so its denial in the replying affidavit could not stand against its own pleadings.

p. 5
02

Whether the named officials should be punished for contempt

Holding

The officials were found in contempt but given 20 days to purge; failing which a notice to show cause against committal to civil jail was issued.

Reasoning

The cited persons swore they were employees of the Respondent against whom the orders were directed. Since the Court found deliberate disobedience, contempt was established against them. However, rather than immediate committal, the Court gave them a chance to purge the contempt, with committal proceedings in default.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Every person against whom a court order is made has an unqualified obligation to obey it until it is discharged or set aside
  • The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
  • The applicant in contempt proceedings must prove four elements: clear and unambiguous order, knowledge or notice, breach, and deliberate conduct
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings and cannot depart from their averments

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Godfrey Akumali, the County Secretary, and Patrick Mbogo, the County Executive Committee Member in charge of Built Environment and Urban Planning, are found to be in contempt of the Court orders issued on 26/10/23
  2. 2.They are directed to purge the contempt within the next 20 days and comply with the Court order
  3. 3.In default of compliance, a notice to show cause is issued requiring them to appear in person before the Court on 27/2/25 to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail
  4. 4.Costs shall be in favour of the Applicants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Judicature ActSection 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(c)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 rule 3
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 160

Cases cited (6)

  • Hadkinson v Hadkinson
    [1952] ALL ER 567
  • Chuck v Cremer
    [1] [1 Coop. temp.Cott 342]
  • Teachers Service Commission v Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General and Another
    [2018] eKLR
  • Mutitika v Baharini Farm Limited
    [1985] KLR 227
  • Michael Sistu Mwaura Kamau v Director of Prosecutions & 4 others
    [2018] EKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act Cap 8, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Morjaria & 2 others v Nairobi City County (Environment & Land Case E110 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3561 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3561/eng@2025-01-30

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