Dahir & 4 others v Maalim & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5799 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to release people jailed for contempt, ruling it cannot revisit its own committal orders—only an appeal can.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction to revisit committal orders
The court lacks jurisdiction to revisit or set aside its own committal orders; such an application is a disguised appeal
The committal proceedings followed a finding of contempt and an opportunity to show cause. After committal orders are made, the court becomes functus officio and the only recourse is an appeal. Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, which donates the contempt jurisdiction, offers no window for revisiting committal while the contempt decision remains in place.
Whether the contemnors deserved the court's equitable discretion
They did not; having undertaken to return seized goods within 30 days and failed, their conduct fell below the equitable threshold
The applicants had undertaken, through their advocate, to return the confiscated items within 30 days from 3rd April 2025 and conceded liability to 3 months' imprisonment in default. They failed to comply, and the goods had been withheld from the 1st respondent for over four years. Such conduct could not be countenanced in equity and did not merit the court's discretion.
Abuse of due process
Re-invoking purging of contempt, already addressed on 3rd April 2025, was a ploy to reopen those proceedings and an abuse of process
The question of purging the contempt was considered in the orders of 3rd April 2025, which gave the applicants 30 days to return the goods. They failed to comply even after the period lapsed. Re-deploying the same issue to circumvent lawful committal was a disguised attempt to revisit the proceedings and amounted to abuse of the court process, per Rutongot Farm Ltd v Kenya Forest Services.
Legal principles established
#- Upon making orders of committal, the court becomes functus officio and a party aggrieved can only prefer an appeal; section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act provides no window to revisit committal proceedings while the contempt decision stands
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 14th July 2025 be and hereby dismissed
- 2.Costs of the Application be and are hereby awarded to the 1st Respondent
- 3.Costs in terms of clause (ii) shall be agreed upon and in default, same to be taxed in the conventional way
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act (2011) - power to punish for contempt; court held it has no jurisdiction to revisit its own committal orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dahir & 4 others v Maalim & another (Miscellaneous Civil Application E006 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5799 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5799/eng@2025-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.