Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedWinam PM ELC E088 of 2024 (appeal)· [2025] KEELC 6899 (KLR)

Ongong’a v Otieno (Environment and Land Appeal E105 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 6899 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 October 2025
EAE. Asati
835 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kisumu court dismissed a contempt claim because the applicant relied on the wrong court order, showing contempt cases fail without precise, proved evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant sought leave to cite the respondent for contempt and her committal to civil jail and/or a fine for disobedience of a court order allegedly issued on 1st April 2025, restraining her from entering, evicting, trespassing on, cultivating, developing, constructing on or selling land parcel No. Kisumu/Kadero/Got Nyabondo/1158 pending hearing and determination of an appeal against the judgment in Winam PM ELC E088 of 2024. The applicant alleged the order was served on the respondent, Teresa Anyango Otieno, who nonetheless ploughed part of the suit parcel using a tractor on 19th April 2025. The respondent denied ever being served, stated there had been full compliance, and that the injunctive orders the applicant relied on belonged to a different file, Kisumu ELC (OS) E033 of 2024. The court applied the established elements of contempt: a valid, clear and unambiguous order; notice of its terms; breach; and wilfulness. It found that the order actually annexed, dated 12th March 2025 and issued by Hon. Justice Okong'o, was a stay of execution of the judgment in Winam PMC ELC No. E008 of 2024 and was not an injunctive order restraining the respondent as claimed. There was no evidence the respondent had proceeded to execute the judgment. The court further noted the applicant appeared to have mixed up particulars of cases, and that the deponent of the supporting affidavit, Joel Midigo Ndeda, was not a party to the matter; the affidavit also referred to the 12th March order rather than the alleged 1st April order. Contempt was therefore not proved to the required standard or at all. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the respondent was in contempt of the court order

Holding

The ingredients of contempt were not proved; the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent

Reasoning

The order relied upon was a stay of execution, not an injunction, and did not restrain the respondent as alleged. No evidence showed the respondent had executed the judgment. The applicant annexed and deponed to an order of 12th March 2025 while accusing breach of an order of 1st April 2025, and the deponent was not a party to the suit, indicating a mix-up of case particulars.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • For contempt to succeed, the applicant must prove a valid, clear and unambiguous court order, notice of its terms, breach, and that the breach was wilful or deliberate
  • A stay of execution order is not an injunction; it does not restrain a party from acts other than executing the judgment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for contempt of court is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the Respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Application for contempt of a stay of execution order issued pending hearing and determination of the appeal (contempt of court proceedings before the ELC)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ongong’a v Otieno (Environment and Land Appeal E105 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 6899 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Winam PM ELC E088 of 2024 (appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6899/eng@2025-10-09

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