AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 7579 (KLR)
Kariuki & 23 others v Settlement Fund Trustee & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 93 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 7579 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 8th April 2025 by the 2nd Defendant/Applicant, Ngari Mahihu. He sought orders that the Directors of the 1st Defendant be cited for contempt of status quo orders issued on 10th December 2013, revocation of titles allegedly fraudulently issued over Plot No 142 ADC Oljorrai Phase II, police assistance in enforcement, and costs. He relied on Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act and authorities including North Tetu Farmers and Shimmers Plaza, and annexed official searches and an investigation report showing that five individuals wrote to the Principal Secretary in July 2024 seeking land allocation, and were allocated land and issued titles in November 2024. The court set out the elements of civil contempt from Micheal Sistu Mwaura Kamau v DPP, Econet Wireless and Carey v Laiken: a clear and unequivocal order, knowledge, and intentional breach, proved to a standard above balance of probabilities. It held the applicant had not proved wilful disobedience, and importantly, it was unclear to whom the 2013 order was directed. The application was dismissed with no orders as to costs on 4th November 2025.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether contempt of the status quo order dated 10th December 2013 was established
Holding
Not established; the applicant did not prove wilful disobedience and the order's addressee was unclear
Reasoning
The court applied the three elements of civil contempt from Carey v Laiken and the Kamau case: a clear and unequivocal order, knowledge, and intentional breach. The applicant produced searches and an investigation report showing titles issued in November 2024, but did not prove that the order was directed at the Directors or that they wilfully disobeyed it.
p. 3
02
Costs of the application
Holding
No orders as to costs
Reasoning
Although counsel sought costs, the court dismissed the application and made no order as to costs.
p. 4
Legal principles established
#- To commit a person for contempt, the court must be satisfied of wilful and deliberate disobedience of a clear and precise order, proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt
- There is an unqualified obligation to obey court orders of competent jurisdiction unless and until discharged
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 8th April, 2025, is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, invoked by the applicant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki & 23 others v Settlement Fund Trustee & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 93 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 7579 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7579/eng@2025-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.