Sai Sports Wear Uniforms Ltd v National Environment M. Authority & 5 others; Mugo & another (Contemnor) (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 316 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a contempt application because the applicant targeted officials who weren't shown to be responsible for complying with the court order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the alleged contemnors (board chairperson of NEMA and the Governor) were properly cited for contempt
No - the Applicant failed to establish that either individual was responsible for implementing the orders; the NEMA Director-General, not the chairperson, runs the Authority's day-to-day affairs under Section 10(14) of EMCA
The court found the alleged contemnors were not parties to the proceedings. Under section 10(14) of EMCA the Director-General is the chief executive responsible for day-to-day management, while the board meets at least four times a year. No reason was given for citing the chairperson, and the officer who swore the 2nd Respondent's replying affidavit was not cited. The Applicant therefore discharged no duty of demonstrating the contemnors' responsibility for compliance.
Whether wilful contempt was proved to the requisite standard
No - mere association with the respondent institutions without proof of responsibility for compliance amounts to insufficient proof
Although the orders of 1st April 2025 remained binding and knowledge was established through counsel's presence and service, the standard of proof in contempt is higher than a balance of probability and the breach must be specifically defined, contempt being of criminal character (Re Bramblevale). The Applicant created no nexus showing how the cited individuals were responsible for obeying the orders, so the offence was not satisfactorily proved.
Legal principles established
#- Elements of civil contempt: existence and terms of the order, knowledge of the order by the respondent, and failure to comply; once established, wilfulness and bad faith are ordinarily inferred
- An advocate's knowledge of a court order is sufficient for contempt proceedings; a party cannot plead ignorance when represented in court
- A person cited for contempt must be shown to have known of the order and to have been responsible for complying with it; associating an officer with an institution without a nexus is insufficient
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than on a balance of probability, since contempt is an offence of a criminal character
Court orders
#- 1.Application for contempt dismissed for want of merit
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to punish contempt of court orders issued on 1st April 2025; Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sai Sports Wear Uniforms Ltd v National Environment M. Authority & 5 others; Mugo & another (Contemnor) (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 316 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 14th July 2025 (contempt application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/316/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.