Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNotice of Motion dated 4th June 2025 (suit pending before the Environment and Land Court, Mombasa)· [2026] KEELC 297 (KLR)

Kencont Logistics Services Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment and Land Case E058 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 297 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 January 2026
JOJ.O. Olola
2,805 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court found Kenya Railways in contempt of a court order and its top officers must now explain why they shouldn't be jailed or fined.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Kencont Logistics Services Limited, the Plaintiff, moved the Environment and Land Court in Mombasa by Notice of Motion dated 4th June 2025 seeking contempt summons against Philip J. Mainga, Managing Director of Kenya Railways Corporation, and Hussein Yusuf, the Corporation's Security Officer - Eastern, for disobeying ex parte injunction orders issued on 19th May 2025 restraining the Defendant from evicting the Plaintiff or interfering with its occupation and use of Mombasa/Block XLVIII/171, 172 and 180. The Plaintiff alleged that despite service, the Defendant locked the premises' gate with a chain and padlock and posted armed police officers and private security guards to block access. The Defendant, in a Replying Affidavit sworn by Stanley Gitari, asserted it holds title to the properties, alleged the titles of the Plaintiff's lessors were fraudulently acquired in 1996, and claimed the deployment of officers was to secure a railway operations area under Section 16 of the Kenya Railways Corporation Act, denying any padlocks or denial of access. Justice J.O. Olola considered the contempt principles in the Ahmad Abolfathi Mohamed, Hadkinson and Econet Wireless authorities, found the Defendant was served and aware of the orders, noted photographic evidence of the locked gate, and held that the Defendant's conduct violated the 19th May 2025 orders notwithstanding its ownership claims. The court allowed the Motion in terms of prayer No. 3, issuing summons to the two officers to appear on 25th February 2026 to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail or fined, with costs to the Defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendant disobeyed the injunction orders of 19th May 2025

Holding

The Defendant was in contempt by locking the gate with a chain and padlock and posting armed police officers and security guards on the premises

Reasoning

The court found the Defendant was served and aware of the orders; its own affidavit confirmed continued deployment of security personnel on the premises. Photographic evidence showed the gate locked with chain and padlock as at 4th June 2025. The Defendant's claim of securing a railway operations area did not justify conduct aimed at interrupting the Plaintiff's operations.

p. 5
02

Whether personal summons should issue against the Managing Director and Security Officer

Holding

Summons to show cause were issued against Philip J. Mainga and Hussein Yusuf for contempt

Reasoning

Having found the elements of contempt established - clear orders, knowledge, non-compliance and deliberate conduct - the court allowed the Motion in terms of prayer No. 3 and directed the officers to appear and show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail or fined.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • Every person against whom a court order is made is bound to obey it unless and until it is discharged, even where they believe it to be irregular or void
  • The power to commit a contemnor to jail must be exercised with utmost care and only as a last resort, requiring proof of deliberate, willful disobedience

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Summons issued to Philip J. Mainga and Hussein Yusuf to appear before the court on 25th February 2026 to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail or fined for contempt
  2. 2.Costs of the application to be borne by the Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 29
  • Kenya Railways Corporation ActSection 16

Cases cited (4)

  • Republic –vs- Ahmad Abolfathi Mohamed & Another
    (2018) eKLR
  • Hadkinson –vs- Hadkinson
    (1952) All E.R. 567
  • Chuck –vs- Cremer
    1 Coop. temp. Cott 342
  • Econet Wireless Kenya Limited –vs- Minister for Information and Communication Authority of Kenya
    (2005) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act (contempt jurisdiction under Section 29)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kencont Logistics Services Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment and Land Case E058 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 297 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 4th June 2025 (suit pending before the Environment and Land Court, Mombasa). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/297/eng@2026-01-29

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