Dodhia v Kung’u & another (Environment and Land Case 1577 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1336 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found a seller in contempt for refusing to honour a 2017 land sale judgment, and she must show cause why she should not be jailed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the notice of preliminary objection dated 10th November, 2025 raises pure points of law capable of disposing of the application
- 2.Whether Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules precludes contempt proceedings as a mode of enforcing the decree
- 3.Whether filing an application after judgment has been delivered amounts to an abuse of the process of the court
- 4.Whether the 1st defendant/contemnor is in contempt of the judgment and decree of 12th October, 2017 and 14th February, 2018
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection raised pure points of law
The preliminary objection did not raise pure points of law and was dismissed with costs
Applying Mukisa Biscuits, Musakali and Oraro v Mbaja, the court held that a valid preliminary objection must be a pure point of law on agreed facts capable of disposing of the matter without trial. The grounds raised were factual or confusing: whether contempt lies after judgment under section 29 of the ELC Act is a question of law the court resolved against the objector, and the abuse-of-process ground rested on contested matters.
Whether Order 22 bars contempt as a mode of enforcing the decree
Order 22 rule 29 provides the avenue for delivery of possession, but it does not oust the court's contempt jurisdiction under section 29 of the ELC Act for willful disobedience of orders
The court noted the applicant never invoked Order 22, and that rule 29(1) provides for delivery of possession of immovable property, meaning the applicant should seek eviction through that route since he holds a certificate of title. However, section 29 of the ELC Act grants the court power to punish willful disobedience of its orders, and that power survives the delivery of judgment, as illustrated by the cited authorities.
Whether the 1st defendant was in contempt of the judgment and decree
The 1st defendant was found in contempt of the judgment of 12th October, 2017 and the decree of 14th February, 2018 pursuant to order 3 thereof
The decree did not expressly order handing over of possession, but order 3 declared a valid sale agreement whose terms bound both parties. The 1st defendant refused to complete the sale by receiving the balance of the purchase price despite the plaintiff's documented attempts to pay, and her advocate's letter of 20th May, 2025 displayed total disregard of the court's orders. Nearly nine years after judgment, this amounted to willful disobedience warranting a notice to show cause.
Legal principles established
#- For a preliminary objection to succeed it must be a pure point of law, not blurred by disputed facts, and capable of disposing of the matter without trial
- The contempt jurisdiction should be exercised with greatest reluctance where another method of doing justice exists
- The power to punish for contempt under section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act survives delivery of judgment and transcends even after judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 10th November, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/applicant
- 2.A notice to show cause to issue forthwith to the 1st defendant/contemnor to show cause why she should not be committed to jail or punished
- 3.The 1st defendant/contemnor to appear in court on 22nd April, 2026 at 2.30 p.m. for the said notice to show cause
- 4.Failure to comply with the attendance order, warrants of arrest to issue
- 5.The plaintiff/applicant is entitled to the costs of this application, to be borne by the 1st defendant/contemnor
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 5 of the Judicature Act
Relief refused
#Immediate conviction of the 1st defendant for contempt and attachment of her property or committal to prison (as sought in the notice of motion)
The court did not convict outright but issued a notice to show cause; and on possession, the applicant was directed to the execution route under Order 22 rule 29 rather than contempt
Costs
The notice of preliminary objection and the application were each allowed with costs to the plaintiff/applicant; the costs to be borne by the 1st defendant/contemnor.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
A notice to show cause to issue forthwith to the 1st defendant/contemnor to show cause why she should not be committed to jail or punished.
The plaintifi/applicant is entitled to the costs of this application. The same to be borne by the 1st defendant/contemnor.
It is my finding that the 1st defendant/contemnor is in contempt of the judgment of this court delivered on 12th October, 2017 and the decree issued on 14th February, 2018 pursuant to Order 3 thereof.
Recourse ought not to be had to process of contempt in aid of a civil remedy where there is any other method of doing justice.
This provision of the law grants this court the power to punish for willful disobedience of its orders as when it arises. The application of the same provision transcends even after judgment.
for a preliminary objection to succeed, the same must consist of a pure point of law, with the facts not disputed by the opposing party.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment cites 'Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules' as a ground of the preliminary objection but does not specify the statute or rules under which the Environment and Land Court proceedings were brought; the applicant's motion invokes English Civil Procedure Rules (Rules 23.3 & 81.4) via Section 5 of the Judicature Act, and the case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment.
The judgment refers to section 29 of 'the Environment and Land Court' without the word 'Act' in the text, and quotes Article 24 of a passage from KHRC v Attorney General while numbering it '57.' mid-quote, suggesting typographical irregularities in the quoted passage.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dodhia v Kung’u & another (Environment and Land Case 1577 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1336 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1336/eng@2026-03-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.