Kibwambok v Rono & 2 others (Land Originating Summons E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1301 (KLR)
The bottom line
#An Eldoret court refused to jail landowners for breaking a court order because the applicant's photos and evidence didn't actually prove they did.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents were in contempt of the status quo orders of 15th May and 2nd October, 2025
No contempt established; the Applicant failed to prove eviction or breach of the order to the requisite standard
The court found the orders clear and unambiguous and accepted the Respondents had notice, having been served and having admitted service. However, the Applicant's photographs showing a temporary gate, tilled land and a tractor did not demonstrate eviction, and the Respondents' photographs showed the Applicant's houses still standing. The standard of proof in contempt is higher than ordinary civil cases because liberty is at stake, and the Applicant did not discharge that burden.
The applicable law on contempt and the standard of proof
The Contempt of Court Act having been declared unconstitutional, contempt is governed by section 5 of the Judicature Act; proof must be beyond reasonable doubt, at least higher than the civil standard
The court noted the Applicant had cited the since-invalidated Contempt of Court Act and directed that the law reverted to the Judicature Act. Relying on Katsuri Limited v Kapurchand Depar Shah, it held that committal affects liberty and must be exercised with great care as a last resort, requiring proof of deliberate breach to a heightened standard, which the Applicant did not meet.
Admissibility of the electronic evidence (photographs and certificate)
The objection failed because the Respondents themselves annexed photographs without complying with Sections 78A and 106B of the Evidence Act
The Respondents argued the certificate was defective as it was signed by the Applicant rather than the photographers, and lacked device details. The court found the objection disingenuous since the Respondents had also annexed non-compliant photographs, applying the principle that a party cannot approbate and reprobate.
Legal principles established
#- The Contempt of Court Act No. 46 of 2016 was declared unconstitutional and the law on contempt reverted to section 5 of the Judicature Act
- Civil contempt requires proof of four elements: clear and unambiguous terms of the order; knowledge or notice; breach; and deliberate conduct, to a standard higher than ordinary civil cases
- A party cannot fault an opponent's non-compliance with evidentiary requirements it has itself failed to meet
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 15th January, 2026 is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act (matters of contempt), following the invalidation of the Contempt of Court Act, and Sections 63 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act as invoked by the Applicant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kibwambok v Rono & 2 others (Land Originating Summons E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1301 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 15th January, 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1301/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.