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· [2025] KEELC 4113 (KLR)

Baboon Project Kenya v County Government of Nakuru & 2 others (Environment & Land Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4113 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 May 2025
AOAntony O. Ombwayo
2,171 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Nakuru's Environment and Land Court refused to excuse Governor Kihika from a contempt fine, ruling that service on the County Attorney bound the county government.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Hon. Susan Wakarura Kihika, Governor of the 1st Respondent (County Government of Nakuru), applied by notice of motion dated 28th February 2025 seeking to be joined to the underlying environmental petition, and to review and set aside this court's ruling of 17th February 2025 in which she was cited for contempt and fined Kshs. 2,000,000/- jointly for breach of permanent orders of 26th September 2024 restraining dumping of waste into Lake Nakuru Basin. She contended she was away on maternity leave and was never personally served, denying her a fair hearing contrary to Article 50. The 2nd Respondent opposed, asserting all parties were aware of the orders and that public interest in protecting the lake outweighed her grievances; the 3rd Respondent supported the application. The court framed the sole issue as whether the Applicant deserved review under Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, whose grounds include discovery of new matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. Relying on North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi on the elements of civil contempt, the court held that the fine was made against the County Government, which was already a party; the County Attorney's office had been served and the Applicant was aware of the orders, so personal service on the Governor was unnecessary. The application was disallowed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicant deserved review of the contempt ruling under Order 45 Rule 1(1) on 'any other sufficient reason'

Holding

The application for review was disallowed because the Applicant was aware of the ruling through the County Attorney, the fine was against the County Government and not her personally, and the county government was already a party to the suit

Reasoning

The court outlined the Order 45 grounds: discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The Applicant relied on 'any other sufficient reason', claiming she was on maternity leave and not personally served. However, the court found the County Attorney was served with notice and was aware of the orders, so the Applicant had knowledge of the ruling. Since the fine was imposed on the County Government as a body, which was already party to the suit, joining the Governor personally was unnecessary and the review was not deserved.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The four elements that must be proved to establish civil contempt
  • Where a county government is a party and its office was served, personal service on the Governor is not required for contempt

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 28th February, 2025 is disallowed
  2. 2.Each party to bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 3
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 10
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50

Cases cited (9)

  • Kariuki Njuri V Francis Kimaru Rwara (suing as Administrator of the Estate of Rwara Kimaru alias Benson Rwara Kimaru (Deceased)
    [2020]
  • Waithaka V Bashaeki & 2 Others
    (Civil Appeal 91 of 2018) [2024] KEHC 12791 (KLR)
  • Omotoe & Another V Ogutu
    (Civil Appeal E005 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 16441 (KLR)
  • Tom Ojienda & Associates V County Secretary, Nairobi City County & Another
    (Application 312 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 10705 (KLR)
  • Nyamodi Ochieng Nyamogo & Another V Kenya Posts & Telecommunications Corporation
    (1994) eKLR
  • Republic V Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Shanzu Investments Limited V Commissioner for Lands
    (Civil Appeal No 100 of 1993)
  • Gerita Nasipondi Bukunya & 2 Others V Attorney General
    [2019] eKLR
  • North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd V Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi
    (2016) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 45 Rule 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Baboon Project Kenya v County Government of Nakuru & 2 others (Environment & Land Petition E004 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4113 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4113/eng@2025-05-23

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