Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of motion dated March 7, 2025 (suit reference not stated in the excerpt)· [2025] KEELC 7467 (KLR)

Lamu Breeze Investment Limited & another v Malakwen & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 224 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 7467 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 October 2025
EME. K. Makori
1,304 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Malindi dismissed a contempt application, ruling that disobeying a court order must be proven as deliberate and dishonest, not just alleged.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, by notice of motion dated March 7, 2025, sought to have the directors of Dim Properties Limited, including Ashok Doshi, cited for contempt of the decree arising from the judgment of November 22, 2019, which ordered demolition of a perimeter wall on plot LR NO. 28462 and removal of debris. The applicants argued the 3rd respondent interfered with court-ordered possession by filing a police complaint. The 3rd respondent and the 4th and 6th respondents opposed, demonstrating through land records that the applicants had executed the decree on the wrong property (CR 18245), which was not subject to any valid decree, and had forcibly taken possession, demolished a wall, and irregularly obtained an unserved amended decree. The court, E. K. Makori J, set out the settled standard for civil contempt, drawing on the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed and Mativo J's four-element test in Samuel M. N. Mweru: the order must be clear and binding, known to the alleged contemnor, breached, and breached deliberately and mala fide. Applying that standard, the court found the police complaint was not deliberate disobedience, as the records showed execution had occurred on the incorrect property, and the police had a lawful duty to investigate. The applicant's own affidavits confirmed possession had been taken, a fence built, and the title updated, making the application a fait accompli. The application was dismissed with costs on October 22, 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the directors of the 3rd respondent were in contempt of the decree of November 22, 2019

Holding

No contempt established; the police complaint by Ashok Doshi was not a deliberate or willful flouting of the order

Reasoning

The court applied the Supreme Court's standard that contempt must be proved to a higher standard and be deliberate and mala fide. Land records (PO-2(b), (c), (d)) showed the plot executed upon was the wrong property, and the directors' complaint to the police invoked a lawful duty of investigation rather than disobedience. The applicant had already taken possession, demolished a wall, fenced the property and updated the title, rendering the application a fait accompli.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicant executed the decree lawfully on property CR 18245

Holding

Execution was irregular; no valid decree existed for CR 18245 and the amended decree was never served

Reasoning

The Deputy Registrar confirmed no new decree was issued after the ex parte post-judgment amendment of the plaint. The applicant nonetheless forcibly took possession of CR 18245, demolished its wall, and later irregularly obtained a new decree uploaded on February 17, 2025 without service on the 3rd defendant. This conduct undermined the contempt claim.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt must be proved to a standard higher than in civil cases and only as a last resort, requiring deliberate and willful flouting of the order
  • Four elements must be proved for civil contempt: clear and unambiguous binding terms, knowledge or notice, breach, and deliberateness
  • Non-compliance amounting to contempt must be both intentional and mala fide; good faith negates the violation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated March 7, 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Original contempt jurisdiction in the pending suit (application for committal for disobedience of the court's decree)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lamu Breeze Investment Limited & another v Malakwen & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 224 of 2014) [2025] KEELC 7467 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated March 7, 2025 (suit reference not stated in the excerpt). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7467/eng@2025-10-22

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