Ngecha Mbari Ya Thaara Co. Ltd & 3 others v Langat & 5 others; OCS Kongoni Police Station & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 7249 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Naivasha dismissed a contempt application because the applicants offered no concrete proof that the other side deliberately disobeyed a court order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there was a valid order of the court of 31st July 2024.
- 2.Whether the Respondents and the 1st interested party were served with or made aware of the orders issued on 31st July 2024.
- 3.Whether the Respondents and the 1st interested party herein deliberately and willfully failed to comply with the terms of the order and are guilty of contempt of Court orders issued on 31st July 2024.
Key legal issues
#Validity of the order of 31st July 2024
The court had validly issued status quo orders in its ruling of 25th July 2024 preserving the suit parcels
Relying on Mugah v Kunga on preservation of subject matter in land disputes and the court's practice directions, the court found the status quo order defining the parties' positions valid and expounded, capable of founding contempt proceedings.
Service and knowledge of the order
All parties were represented by counsel when the order was made; actual knowledge dispensed with personal service
Following Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited, the court held that jurisprudence has relaxed the requirement of personal service; where an advocate was present in court when orders issued, knowledge is imputed and contempt proceedings are not vitiated.
Willful disobedience of the order
Contempt was not proved; the applicants adduced no concrete evidence of willful and deliberate breach
The applicants made bare assertions of interference, mutilation or defilement of the status quo without photographs, documents or other proof. Given the quasi-criminal standard of proof in contempt proceedings, being higher than balance of probabilities, the application failed.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a court order suffices for contempt proceedings; strict personal service is not required
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt
- Mere assertions of non-compliance without concrete evidence cannot found a finding of contempt
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated the 7th March, 2025 is dismissed with costs.
- 2.The Respondents and the 1st Interested party are discharged from the contempt proceedings.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Order citing the Respondents and the 1st Interested Party for contempt and committing them to civil jail for six months or fining them at least Kshs. 200,000/-
Applicants failed to discharge the heightened burden of proof; no concrete evidence of willful disobedience of the order of 31st July 2024
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Evidence having not been provided by the Applicants that indeed they were willfully and deliberately in disobedience of the court order of 31st July 2024, and owing to the standard of proof required in contempt proceedings, I find that the Application dated the 7th March, 2025 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs.
The Respondents and the 1st Interested party are herein discharged from the contempt proceedings.
The mere assertion of non-compliance or negative actions is insuficient.
Contempt is a serious matter, and the standard of proof required is often high (sometimes proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal contempt, or a high civil standard like clear and convincing evidence).
Issues in the judgment
#Application cited 'Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010', which the judgment itself flags as (sic); Section 18 belongs to the Civil Procedure Act
Internal date inconsistencies in the judgment: applicants allege interference discovered on 22nd January 2023 although the orders issued in 2024, and replying affidavits are dated 25th October 2025 (sic) and 24th October 2024
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngecha Mbari Ya Thaara Co. Ltd & 3 others v Langat & 5 others; OCS Kongoni Police Station & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 7249 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 7th March 2025 (ELC suit, Naivasha). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7249/eng@2025-10-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.