Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowed· [2025] KEELC 6659 (KLR)

Rift Gas Limited v Muigai & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E209 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6659 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 September 2025
GKG Kemei
2,607 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court held a landowner in contempt for sabotaging a tenant's licence through EPRA, showing court orders must be obeyed until formally set aside.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Applicant sought committal of the 4th Respondent to civil jail for contempt of orders issued on 23/4/24, which restrained interference with its quiet and peaceful possession of land LR No Dagoretti/Mutuini/1370 pending an arbitration over its tenancy rights. The Applicant, which operates an LPG storage and filling business on the land, complained that the 4th Respondent wrote to EPRA stating the lease had not been renewed, leading to revocation of its energy licence. The 4th Respondent opposed, arguing the lease expired on 31/8/24 by effluxion of time, that non-renewal was communicated as early as 29/10/23, that the land had been subdivided and new titles issued, that he had no privity of contract with the Applicant, and that his letter was fair comment made in good faith. The 1st-3rd Respondents did not respond, and only the Applicant filed submissions. Applying the four-part test for contempt, the Court found the orders clear, their knowledge established, and the 4th Respondent's conduct a deliberate breach amounting to interference with quiet possession. It declined to delve into the lease renewal question, reserving that for the arbitral tribunal, and held that the orders had not been overtaken by the subdivision since the land's character was unchanged. The application dated 5/2/25 was allowed; the 4th Respondent was held in contempt and ordered to appear on 18/11/2025 for mitigation and sentencing, with liberty to purge the contempt. Costs were awarded to the Applicant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 4th Respondent was in contempt of the orders of 23/4/24

Holding

Yes - the orders were clear, he had knowledge, and he deliberately breached them by writing to EPRA leading to revocation of the applicant's licence, interfering with quiet possession.

Reasoning

The Court found the order unambiguous and served on counsel. The 4th Respondent admitted writing to EPRA but framed it as fair comment; the Court held that the acts interfered with quiet possession of the suit land, and he had not shown he informed EPRA of the arbitration or the interim measures. Whether the lease was renewed is for the arbitral tribunal.

p. 5
02

Whether the orders had been overtaken by events owing to subdivision and transfer of the land

Holding

No - the land's character remained consistent with the orders despite the changed reference number.

Reasoning

The subdivision and registration of new owners on 6/7/23 predated the suit, and it remained unclear whether the transferred land was subject to the lease. The 4th Respondent himself confirmed the applicant's location corresponded to the suit land, so the orders had not been overtaken by events.

p. 5
03

Costs

Holding

Costs awarded to the applicant, following the event.

Reasoning

The Court applied the ordinary rule that costs follow the event and saw no reason to deny the successful applicant costs.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Any person subject to a court order has an unqualified duty to comply until it is discharged or set aside, even if they believe it irregular or void.
  • The applicant in contempt proceedings must prove the terms of the order, knowledge, breach, and deliberateness.
  • A party cannot litigate before the court matters agreed to be submitted to an arbitral tribunal; the existence of unsetting court orders suffices for contempt.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 5/2/25 is merited and is allowed
  2. 2.The 4th Respondent is held in contempt of the Court orders issued on 23/4/2024
  3. 3.The 4th Respondent to appear before the Court on 18/11/2025 for mitigation and sentencing
  4. 4.The 4th Respondent is at liberty to purge the contempt before then
  5. 5.Costs in favour of the applicant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 10, 159, 160
  • Judicature Actsection 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 63(c)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 3
  • Environment and Land Court Actsection 29

Cases cited (3)

  • Fred Matiang'i, the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Co-ordination of National Government v Miguna & 4 others
    [2018] KECA 789 eKLR
  • Kenya Human Rights Commission V Attorney General and Another
    (2018) eKLR
  • Hadkinson –vs- Hadkinson
    (1952) ALL ER 567
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 10 and 159 of the Constitution; section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; sections 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rift Gas Limited v Muigai & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E209 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6659 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6659/eng@2025-09-30

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