Nairobi City County v Waithaka (Environment & Land Case E116 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3940 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintifl/respondent and the cited officers are in contempt of the consent orders of 20th May, 2024
The plaintifl/respondent is in contempt, having knowledge of the orders made in the presence of its counsel and not denying entry onto the suit property; the individual citees were not found in contempt for want of proof of personal knowledge
The consent orders were made in the presence of counsel for all parties and remain in force. The respondent and citees did not deny being on the suit property on 29th and 30th January, 2025, nor the photographic evidence, such denials being raised only in submissions as an afterthought. Knowledge is imputed to the respondent through its counsel. However, the individual citees denied knowledge and service, and the standard of proof being quasi-criminal, committal could not rest on inference. The Chief Oficer, Lands, who did not deny knowledge, should have been cited.
Standard of proof in contempt proceedings
Applied the Gatharia K. Mutikika standard: proof higher than balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
Because liberty of the subject is at stake, contempt being criminal in character, the applicant must prove wilful and deliberate disobedience to a standard consistent with the gravity of the charge. The jurisdiction being practically arbitrary and unlimited, it must be exercised with greatest reluctance and only where no other mode of doing justice exists.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and the standard of proof is higher than a balance of probabilities, though not the full criminal standard
- Personal knowledge/service of the order is required before a person can be cited for contempt
- Knowledge of an order made in the presence of a party's counsel is imputed to that party
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintifl/respondent is declared in contempt of the court orders issued on 20th May, 2024
- 2.Cecila Koigu, the Chief Oficer, Lands of the plaintifl/respondent to appear in court on 1st July, 2025 to show cause why the plaintifl/respondent should not be punished
- 3.Failure to comply with the appearance order warrants an order of arrest to issue
- 4.The defendant/applicant is awarded the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nairobi City County v Waithaka (Environment & Land Case E116 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3940 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3940/eng@2025-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.