Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the ruling· [2025] KEELC 8214 (KLR)

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Ali Din & another (Land Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8214 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
27 November 2025
YAY. M. Angima
1,492 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

#

The Environment and Land Court in Mombasa dismissed a contempt application because the plaintiff never formally served the court order and could not prove who was building on the land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a notice of motion dated 03.07.2025 premised on Section 29 of the ELC Act, Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Rule 81.4 of the English Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2020, the plaintiff sought to cite the respondents for contempt of interim injunctive orders issued on 27.01.2025 and extended thereafter, restraining construction on suit properties including Mombasa/Block XVI/618, and to have them punished by fine or committal to civil jail. It was alleged the respondents were erecting a mosque to make future demolition difficult. The 1st respondent, Thureya Mohamed Ali Din, denied instructing anyone to build, stating he resides in the UAE and that the orders did not restrict peaceful possession as registered owner. The court framed two issues: whether contempt was established, and costs. Applying Samuel M. N. Mweru, it held contempt is quasi-criminal, requiring proof to a standard above balance of probabilities of clear order terms, knowledge, breach and deliberateness. The court found no indication the ex parte order was ever extracted and served on the respondents, and the undated photographs did not show construction on the suit property or connect the respondents to it. The evidence did not meet the required standard, and the application was dismissed. Although costs normally follow the event, the court declined to penalize the plaintiff since the main suit is still pending, ordering costs of the application to be in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt of the interim injunction of 27.01.2025 was established

Holding

Not established: the ex parte order was never extracted and served, and the evidence did not link the respondents to construction on the suit property to the required standard.

Reasoning

The court recited the elements of civil contempt from Samuel M. N. Mweru: clear terms, knowledge/notice, breach, and deliberateness, proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities. On the record, there was no proof the ex parte order of 27.01.2025 was extracted and served in full on the respondents, defeating the knowledge element. The photographs bore no date stamps, showed an unidentified building, and had little connection to the respondents or the suit property.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The law governing contempt of court proceedings under Section 5 of the Judicature Act is the English law applicable in England at the time the alleged contempt is committed.
  • Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal; the standard of proof is higher than the balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt, and the applicant must prove the terms of the order, the respondent's knowledge of them, breach, and deliberateness.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's application dated 03.07.2025 is dismissed.
  2. 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 29
  • Judicature ActSection 5
  • English Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2020Rule 81.4
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)Section 27 (proviso)

Cases cited (2)

  • Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others
    [2020] eKLR
  • Hussein Janmohamed & Sons -vs- Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd
    [1967] EA 287
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Rule 81.4 of the English Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 3) Rules 2020

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Ali Din & another (Land Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8214 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the ruling. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8214/eng@2025-11-27

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