Atebe v County Government of Nairobi & 4 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E042 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 904 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi court found Nairobi City County officials in contempt of court orders but gave them one last chance to comply and pay the tenant's legal costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents' conduct constituted contempt of the orders of 12th June 2025
Yes - the terms of the order were clear, the respondents had knowledge through service, and their actions in failing to issue the rent account statement and invading the premises were deliberate breaches amounting to contempt
The court found the 12th June 2025 orders clear as to their terms: prohibition of eviction/interference and an order to issue a rent account statement. The respondents, duly served through the office of the county attorney, failed to issue the statement from June to September and sent agents to invade the premises, damaging the door and tearing court orders displayed. Deliberate action with knowledge of clear orders satisfies the test for contempt.
Which remedy to grant where contempt is established but alternative prayers exist
The court granted the alternative prayer compelling the 2nd Respondent to furnish rent invoices, holding a notice to show cause in abeyance, to issue only on default
Although contempt was established, the applicant had prayed in the alternative for an order compelling the 2nd Respondent to furnish rent invoices. The court considered it in the interest of justice to give the 2nd Respondent a chance to obey the court orders, with the notice to show cause reserved for failure to comply.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in contempt proceedings, the applicant must prove the terms of the order were clear and unambiguous and binding, the respondent had knowledge or notice of the terms, the respondent breached the order, and the breach was deliberate
- To commit a person for contempt, the court must be satisfied the person deliberately and wilfully disobeyed a court order he was aware of, the order must be clear and precise, and the standard of proof is higher than balance of probabilities but not as high as beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.That the 2nd Respondent and or her agents are hereby restrained from trespassing, harassing, threatening the Applicant and/or demolishing, damaging the suit premises and or interfering with the Applicant's tenancy
- 2.That the 2nd Respondent to furnish the Applicant with rent invoices with respect to the suit property
- 3.That in default of prayer (3) above, a Notice to show cause shall issue to the 2nd respondent to show cause why contempt of court proceedings should not be commenced against her
- 4.That costs of this application be borne by the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original judicial review jurisdiction; leave granted on 12th June 2025 to operate as stay
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Atebe v County Government of Nairobi & 4 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E042 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 904 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Application dated 15th September 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/904/eng@2026-02-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.