Abdalla & 6 others v Khansa Developers Limited & 3 others (Constitutional Petition 16 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6219 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Mombasa court found a developer and its directors guilty of defying court orders and stopped all construction until they fully comply with environmental requirements.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Respondent was in willful contempt of the orders of 30th April 2024
Yes - it resumed construction without obtaining a fresh EIA or fresh development approvals as directed
The court reviewed the conditions set in its Ruling of 30th April 2024, which required a fresh EIA and fresh development approvals before continued development. The 1st Respondent's director averred compliance but exhibited no fresh EIA Report or fresh applications for approvals. A Suspension of Work Order from the National Construction Authority dated 7th February 2025 showed construction was ongoing and non-compliant. The court concluded the construction was in total and willful disregard of the orders.
Whether the 3rd and 4th Respondents were liable for contempt
No - knowledge of the orders was not proven
Although the court was persuaded that the 3rd and 4th Respondents had not done their part, the orders of 30th April 2024 were issued in their absence and in an application in which they did not participate. Since proof of knowledge of the terms of the order is an essential element of contempt, and no evidence of such knowledge was placed before the court, contempt could not be established against them.
Whether a temporary injunction should issue pending compliance
Yes - against the 1st and 2nd Respondents
Having found the 1st and 2nd Respondents had contravened the orders regarding resumption of construction, the court was persuaded that they should be restrained from further development until full compliance with the conditions in the Ruling of 30th April 2024, including the fresh EIA, new development plans and fresh development approvals.
Legal principles established
#- In civil contempt proceedings the applicant must prove the terms of the order, the respondent's knowledge of those terms, and willful failure to comply
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from proceeding with any further developments on Mombasa/Block XXVI/595 until full compliance with the conditions in the Ruling of 30th April 2024
- 2.The directors of the 1st Respondent found guilty of willful disobedience of the court's orders of 30th April 2024
- 3.Summons issued to the directors to appear on 22nd October 2025 for mitigation and sentencing
- 4.Costs of the application borne by the 1st Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; enforcement of the court's own orders of 30th April 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abdalla & 6 others v Khansa Developers Limited & 3 others (Constitutional Petition 16 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6219 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2025 (Petition, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6219/eng@2025-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.