Koskei v Lipton Tea and Infusion Kenya Plc & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6034 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kericho court refused to jail company officials for contempt because the applicant couldn't prove they deliberately broke a court order after knowing about it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether personal service of a court order is a prerequisite to a finding of contempt
Knowledge of the order suffices to dispense with personal service; the objection on personal service therefore cannot hold.
Relying on Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited, the court held that Kenya's jurisprudence has moved from the strict personal service requirement. Since the Respondents concede they were served on 18th December 2024 through their counsel, the lack of personal service on the individual alleged contemnors was not fatal. However, the court had to satisfy itself beyond any shadow of a doubt that the alleged contemnors acted with full knowledge of the order.
Whether the alleged contemnors deliberately disobeyed the status quo order of 16th December 2024
No contempt established: the evidence showed the tenancy agreement with Beatrice Wairimu was signed on 16th December 2024, before service of the order on 18th December 2024.
The applicant alleged the lease was fraudulently backdated to defeat the status quo order, but placed no evidence of fraud before the court. The lease agreement dated 16th December 2024 and the affidavit of service showing service on 18th December 2024 led the court to deduce the Respondents had no knowledge or notice of the order when signing the lease. Contempt being quasi-criminal, the burden of proving deliberate disobedience was not discharged.
Costs
Costs follow the event; the Respondents as successful parties were awarded costs.
Relying on Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court for good reason directs otherwise. No such reason existed here, so the dismissed application attracted costs to the Respondents.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a Court order suffices to prove service and dispenses with the requirement of personal service for purposes of contempt proceedings.
- Civil contempt requires proof to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt, of four elements: clear unambiguous order, knowledge/notice, breach, and deliberateness.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 3rd July, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Order 52 Rule 3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of England 1965; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Koskei v Lipton Tea and Infusion Kenya Plc & 2 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6034 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Petition dated 15th October, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6034/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.