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 as provided· [2025] KEELC 6161 (KLR)

Umagara Wiyonere Company Limited v Samora & another (Environment and Land Case E142 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6161 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2025
COChristine Ochieng
2,419 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

#

The court refused both applications, finding the injunction request a repeat of earlier orders and contempt unproven because the county was never personally served.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The court determined two Notices of Motion by the Plaintiff in a land dispute over Plot LR No. 28395. The first, dated 19th January 2025, sought a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from dispossessing, trespassing on, constructing on or dealing with the plot, following a notice to vacate allegedly issued by the 2nd Defendant. The second, dated 7th March 2025, sought orders of committal for contempt of the interim injunction issued on 31st January 2025, and orders compelling the Defendants to desist from construction and related activities. Both applications were opposed. The 1st Defendant, the Member of County Assembly for Clay City Ward, asserted he had no personal interest or construction mandate, and that no construction was ongoing on the suit land, which he described as public land held in trust for residents. The 2nd Defendant, the County Government, similarly denied interference and questioned service. The court framed two issues: entitlement to a temporary injunction, and contempt of the 31st January 2025 orders. On the first, the court found the application res judicata, having noted that similar orders had been sought and allowed in the application dated 17th April 2023 and the ruling of 31st October 2023 (Mbugua J), which confined the Plaintiff to part of the parcel. On contempt, applying the four elements from North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi, the court found the Plaintiff had not proved service of the order on any proper official, nor breach; a County Government could only be committed upon personal service on a proper official. Both applications were found unmerited and disallowed, with costs in the cause, and the parties directed to adhere to the status quo orders of 31st October 2023 pending determination of the suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiff met the threshold for a temporary injunction over Plot LR 28395

Holding

The application was res judicata as similar orders had been sought and allowed in the application dated 17th April 2023 and the Ruling of 31st October 2023 (Mbugua J)

Reasoning

The court noted from its record that the Plaintiff had sought similar interlocutory orders in 2023, which were allowed by a ruling maintaining status quo over part of the parcel. Invoking section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held the fresh application for the same orders was res judicata and declined to grant them.

p. 4
02

Whether the Defendants were in contempt of the order issued on 31st January 2025

Holding

Contempt was not established; the Plaintiff failed to prove service of the order on the Defendants or on any official of the 2nd Defendant, and the evidence did not show breach

Reasoning

Applying the four elements of civil contempt, the court found the Plaintiff did not indicate who was served with the order at the 2nd Defendant's office, the notice served by the County did not identify the suit land, and photographs showed the land undeveloped. A County Government cannot be committed unless a proper official is personally served with the order.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A County Government cannot be committed for contempt unless a proper official has been personally served with the court order
  • Civil contempt requires proof, to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities, of clear and unambiguous terms of the order, knowledge or proper notice, breach, and deliberateness (adopting North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi)
  • A fresh application for the same interlocutory orders previously granted in the same suit is barred by section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (res judicata)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The two Notice of Motion applications dated 19th January 2025 and 7th March 2025 are disallowed/unmerited
  2. 2.Costs will be in the cause
  3. 3.Parties directed to adhere to the Orders issued on 31st October 2023 on maintenance of status quo in LR No. 28395 pending determination of the suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (the suit plot LR No. 28395); no specific constitutional/statutory provision invoked in the judgment as provided

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Umagara Wiyonere Company Limited v Samora & another (Environment and Land Case E142 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6161 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6161/eng@2025-09-24

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