Lokoel v Aberun & another (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2941 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a land judgment won without properly serving the other side, and refused to punish him for contempt because he never knew about it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.If the respondent was condemned unheard in the manner in which the appeal was placed for directions, given directions, admitted for hearing, given direction or manner of disposal, heard and determined.
- 2.If the respondent is guilty of contempt of court.
- 3.Whether the respective applicants are entitled to the reliefs sought.
- 4.What is the order as to costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the respondent was condemned unheard in the hearing and determination of the appeal
Yes - the appeal was heard and determined without proof of service of the memorandum of appeal, record of appeal, written submissions or hearing notice on the respondent, so the judgment of 18/6/2025 was set aside and the appeal ordered reheard de novo.
Order 42 Rules 11, 13, 16, 17 and 20 of the Civil Procedure Rules require service of the memorandum of appeal, notice of directions and hearing notice, failing which an ex parte hearing is possible only upon due service. The court record showed directions that the respondent be served, but there was no evidence the appellant complied. Pere v Osoi places the onus of proving service on the appellant where the respondent defaults in appearance. Without evidence of service, the respondent was condemned unheard, denying him a fair hearing, justifying setting aside ex debito justitiae and a rehearing.
Whether the respondent is guilty of contempt of the orders of 18/6/2025
No - contempt was not proven to the required standard because the applicant failed to demonstrate the respondent's knowledge of the judgment and its binding nature.
Contempt requires clear, unambiguous and binding terms of the order, knowledge or proper notice of the order, and breach of its terms. The respondent deponed that he did not participate in the appeal and only learned of the judgment on 16/10/2025 when served. Following Shimmers Plaza and Wekesa v Munialo, knowledge of the outcome and its binding nature had to be demonstrated by the applicant, which was not done. The contempt application was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Where a respondent does not appear at the hearing of an appeal, the onus is on the appellant to prove service of the court processes and proceedings.
- Ingredients of contempt: the terms of the order must be clear, unambiguous and binding; the defendant must have knowledge or proper notice of the order; and there must be a breach of the terms of the order.
- Knowledge of a judgment's outcome and its binding nature must be demonstrated by the applicant in contempt proceedings.
- Sufficient cause for non-appearance rests on the person seeking indulgence of the court to show what prevented him from appearing.
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 18/6/2025 and all consequential orders
- 2.Judgment of 18/6/2025 set aside ex debito justitiae
- 3.Directions for rehearing the appeal de novo on merit
- 4.Application dated 16/12/2025 allowed with no order as to costs
- 5.Contempt application dated 3/12/2025 dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 of the Civil Procedure Rules (appeal from a subordinate court); contempt jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Finding that the respondent is guilty of contempt of court orders issued on 18/6/2025
Knowledge of the judgment and its binding nature on the respondent was not demonstrated; the respondent did not participate in the appeal and the applicant failed to prove service of the court processes.
Costs
Application dated 16/12/2025 allowed with no order as to costs; contempt application dated 3/12/2025 dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.
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.
It is allowed with no order as to costs.
The court finds the contempt unproven to the required standards. The application is dismissed with costs.
Evidence of service of court processes and proceedings is lacking. If the party's defaulting appearance was the respondent, the onus is on the appellant to satisfy the court that he had served the respondent.
on the ingredients of contempt, namely terms of the order be clear, unambiguous, and binding, or the defendant having knowledge of or proper notice of the order, and lastly, acting in breach of the terms of the order.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the dates of the judgment being set aside: the contempt application is said to arise from orders issued on 18/6/2025, but the applicant deposes he was served with the judgment on 16/10/2025, while paragraph 2 refers to a judgment of the court of 16/10/2025.
The replying affidavit sworn on 8/4/2026 is stated to be outside the timelines given, yet the ruling is dated 14/5/2026; the judgment does not state whether it was admitted.
The case name for Samuel M.N. Mweru v National Land Commission is cited with conflicting citation years ([2020] eKLR and [2010] eKLR) in different parts of the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lokoel v Aberun & another (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2941 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2941/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.