Mwaisama & 158 others v Ndara B Community & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 7371 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Voi dismissed a contempt application because the specific individuals accused of disobeying the court order were never named.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 2nd Respondent, a body corporate registered under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act, could be cited for contempt
No - contempt being personal, the trustees as individuals were not joined and no evidence linked them to the disobedience
The court held contempt of court is in the nature of criminal proceedings requiring a high standard of proof. Contempt is an act of personal responsibility, so the parties against whom the order was directed must be made parties. The trustees were not named as individuals violating the order, and no written or verbal instructions from the 2nd Respondent were produced linking it to non-compliance. Given the higher standard, the court could not presume liability.
Whether wilful and deliberate disobedience of the 23rd October 2023 status quo order was proved
Not proved to the required standard; the application was dismissed
The court reiterated that contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal require proof beyond balance of probabilities and that the applicant must prove wilful and deliberate disobedience. On the evidence, the court was not satisfied the Petitioners proved deliberate disobedience by the 2nd Respondent as listed. Contempt is an enforcement power of last resort and must be used sparingly; the court agreed that a particular individual or directors of a company must be cited.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and the standard of proof is higher than balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
- Contempt is a personal responsibility; a contempt application must name the individual contemnor, and if brought against a company must cite its directors
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 29th September 2025 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court in the petition and contempt proceedings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwaisama & 158 others v Ndara B Community & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2023) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 7371 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Application dated 29th September 2025 (Petition at Voi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7371/eng@2025-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.