Lipton Teas and Infusions Kenya Plc v Mokal Investments Limited & 15 others (Environment and Land Case E014 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1096 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kericho Environment and Land Court refused to jail the Defendants' opponents for cutting trees because the status quo order was too vague to disobey.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the three named officials were in contempt of the status quo order of 14th January, 2025
No contempt found because the status quo was not defined and tree harvesting was not expressly prohibited, so willful disobedience could not be established.
Applying the four elements of civil contempt from North Tetu Farmers, including clarity of the order and deliberate breach, the court noted that the order merely required the status quo obtaining as at the date to be maintained without defining it. Since harvesting was not expressly prohibited and the standard of proof is strict, the applicants failed to discharge their burden.
Whether committal to civil jail or a notice to show cause should issue
Not ripe for determination given the finding of no contempt.
Since the court found on the first issue that no contempt was established, the question of committal or a notice to show cause did not arise for determination.
Whether an order should issue prohibiting tree cutting in compliance with the status quo orders
Unnecessary to address because the status quo orders had lapsed upon determination of the underlying application on 13th November, 2025.
The status quo orders were issued pending hearing and determination of the application dated 14th January, 2025. That application was determined by a ruling delivered on 13th November, 2025, so the orders were no longer subsisting and no compliance order could issue.
Costs of the application
Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the successful party is awarded costs.
The court applied the settled principle that costs follow the event and that a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court for good reason directs otherwise.
Legal principles established
#- An order of status quo ought to define and specify the activities it prohibits or describe the status quo to be maintained; an undefined status quo order cannot found a finding of contempt.
- Contempt must be proved to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt, consistent with the gravity of the charge.
Court orders
#- 1.The 3rd to 16th Defendants/Applicants application dated 17th March, 2025 is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A & 63 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 3(1) & Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lipton Teas and Infusions Kenya Plc v Mokal Investments Limited & 15 others (Environment and Land Case E014 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 1096 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 17th March, 2025 arising in Kericho ELC suit (Plaint dated 11th October, 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1096/eng@2026-02-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.