Ngugi & 5 others v Kenya Railways Staff Retirements Benefits Scheme & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E095 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2429 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to punish Kenya Railways pension scheme officials for contempt and allowed an affordable housing project on disputed Makongeni land to continue.
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 motion dated 3rd December 2025 has merit
Key legal issues
#Whether the cited officials of the 1st respondent committed contempt of the orders issued on 24th November 2025
No contempt was established; the officials did not wilfully disobey the orders
The court took judicial notice that the demolitions were sanctioned by the state and carried out by state-ordered bulldozers with heavy police presence, which the 1st respondent's officials could not control. The respondents were also not responsible for, nor in control of, the entities supplying electricity and water, so they lacked capacity to restore the services as ordered. The standard of proof, being quasi-criminal, was not met.
Whether a conservatory order should issue restraining development on the suit property pending determination of the petition
The conservatory order was refused at the interlocutory stage
Applying the Munya and Gachagua principles on conservatory orders, the court found a major public interest connotation because the suit property is earmarked for the government's affordable housing project. Since the court can order compensation at the main hearing for any genuinely affected uncompensated person, halting construction at the interlocutory stage was not warranted.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature and must be proved to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities but not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt, consistent with the gravity of the charge
- The applicant must prove wilful and deliberate disobedience of court orders to succeed in a contempt application
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 3rd December 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 20, 22, 50(1), 159(2) and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Citation of Isaac Sila and Nancy Chemtai Sang for contempt of the orders of 24 November 2025
No wilful and deliberate disobedience was proved to the required standard; the 1st respondent did not conduct the demolitions nor control the utility providers
Conservatory order restraining any developments on Makongeni Estate, L.R No. 209/6829
Public interest in the affordable housing project; the court can order compensation at the main hearing if any genuine affected person was not compensated
Costs
Dismissed with no orders as to costs
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.
From the above, I find no merit in the notice of motion dated 3rd December 2025, and it is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
The petitioners/applicants must prove willful and deliberate disobedience of the court orders, if they are to succeed.
In my view, I find no wilful disobedience of the orders of this court by the 1st respondent’s cited officials, and this exonerates them of being cited for being guilty of contempt of court.
I decline to issue the conservatory order to prevent construction on the suit property at the interlocutory stage.
Issues in the judgment
#The 3rd respondent's identity and the full party listing are not stated in the ruling; the record mentions a 2nd petitioner (Collins Otieno), a 1st respondent and a 3rd respondent without naming all of them
The petitioners' motion was expressed to cite officials of the 1st respondent for contempt, yet the ruling also records the 1st respondent itself as having sworn the replying affidavit
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngugi & 5 others v Kenya Railways Staff Retirements Benefits Scheme & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E095 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2429 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC Petition No. E095 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2429/eng@2026-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.