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 AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 7290 (KLR)

Kijeti v Lisaliza & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 300 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 7290 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 October 2025
ANA. NYUKURI
1,431 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to punish a landowner for contempt but let his neighbour uproot blocking trees, with the landowner paying the cost.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kakamega (A. Nyukuri, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 19th September 2024 by the 1st defendant, the decree-holder in a suit decided on 27th February 2019 in his favour, dismissing the plaintiff's suit and allowing his counterclaim requiring an access road to his land parcel South Kabras/Shamberere/2002 to be reopened by uprooting trees planted by the plaintiff. The decree-holder sought a contempt finding and punishment against the plaintiff, leave to fell and uproot the trees, authority to sell them to recover expenses with any shortfall executively recovered, and police security. The court framed two issues: whether contempt was proved and whether the decree should be executed as proposed. Applying section 5 of the Judicature Act and Hadkinson v Hadkinson, the court held that contempt requires clear order terms, awareness and willful disobedience; the decree did not task the plaintiff alone with uprooting the trees, either party could comply, and contempt proceedings - being quasi-criminal - were improperly invoked as an execution device. Contempt failed. On execution, the applicant may uproot the trees, with the cost borne by the plaintiff, but sale of the trees was refused for lack of valuation and compliance with the Civil Procedure Rules and Auctioneers Rules. The OCS Kabras was authorized to provide security for a single-day exercise. The application was partially allowed; the contempt and sale prayers were refused.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt was proved against the plaintiff

Holding

Contempt was not proved; the decree required the road to be reopened and trees uprooted without specifying who was to do it, so either party could comply

Reasoning

The decree simply ordered the road reopened by uprooting trees planted by the plaintiff; no person was tasked with doing so. The applicant did not show the respondent thwarted his removal efforts. Using quasi-criminal contempt proceedings as an execution tool is improper since contempt is a crime against the court, not a debt-recovery mechanism.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicant should execute the decree in the manner proposed (self-help felling and sale of trees)

Holding

The applicant may uproot the trees with police security, with costs borne by the plaintiff, but may not sell the trees absent valuation and a known debt authorized by court

Reasoning

The decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree since an unexecuted decree denies effective access to justice. As the trees belong to the plaintiff, removal costs fall on him. However, sale of a judgment debtor's property requires court authorization on a specified and known debt under the Civil Procedure Rules and Auctioneers Rules; without valuation evidence the prayer was speculative.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • To prove contempt, an applicant must show clear and unambiguous terms of a court order, the respondent's awareness of those terms, and deliberate and willful disobedience
  • Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and improper where used as a means of executing a decree
  • Sale of a judgment debtor's property must comply with the Civil Procedure Rules and Auctioneers Rules and requires court authorization upon a specified and known debt

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant to execute the decree herein by uprooting the trees on the access road and the cost thereof shall be borne by the plaintiff/respondent; if unpaid, the applicant may execute for recovery of the said cost as provided in law
  2. 2.The Officer Commanding Station Kabras Police Station is authorized to provide security during the uprooting of the said trees, which exercise should be done in a single day
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 5 of the Judicature Act (contempt jurisdiction)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kijeti v Lisaliza & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 300 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 7290 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7290/eng@2025-10-16

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