Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 29th July, 2025 (arising from Kericho High Court Civil Suit No. 72 of 2005; miscellaneous application number not stated in the judgment)· [2026] KEELC 3272 (KLR)

Chirchir (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Chebutich Arap Ngeny (Deceased)) v Chairman BOM Kiptaldal Primary School & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 3272 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
28 May 2026
3,826 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kericho court refused to punish a school board for contempt because the court order targeted the police, but summoned the OCS to explain his non-compliance.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kericho (L. A. Omollo, J) on the Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion dated 29th July, 2025, seeking leave to institute contempt proceedings against the Defendants/Respondents, a finding of contempt of the order of 8th December, 2022, committal to civil jail for six months, and the summoning of the OCS Sosiot Police Station to explain failure to provide security to auctioneers and to effect warrants of arrest issued on 19th December, 2024. The underlying suit (originally Kericho High Court Civil Suit No. 72 of 2005) resulted in a judgment of 30th June, 2022 declaring the 1st Defendant a trespasser on a 1.3-acre portion of Kericho/Sosiot/768, ordering vacation within 30 days and awarding general damages of Kshs. 100,000. The Defendants, represented by the acting head teacher and secretary of the school board, denied knowledge of the orders, noting the current board was inaugurated on 10th June, 2025, produced a survey report showing encroachment of only 0.06 acres, and argued the application was statute-barred under Section 34 of the Contempt of Court Act and that the OCS was not a party. Framing four issues, the court held that the order of 8th December, 2022 was directed at the OCS, not the Defendants, and there was no evidence of service of that order on the Defendants, so contempt was not proved; committal was consequently not ripe for determination. However, given evidence of service of the orders on the OCS, the court found no impediment to summoning him to explain non-compliance. The application partially succeeded: the OCS was summoned, and the Plaintiff was awarded costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Defendants/Respondents are in contempt of the order of 8th December, 2022

Holding

No contempt was established; the order of 8th December, 2022 was directed at the OCS Sosiot Police Station, not the Defendants, and there was no evidence of service of it on the Defendants

Reasoning

The court applied the four-element test for civil contempt from North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi and the knowledge-based service standard in Shimmers Plaza. It examined the order of 8th December, 2022 and found it obligated only the OCS to provide security for the auctioneer and surveyor during eviction. Since the order did not bind the Defendants and the affidavits of service sworn by Vincent C. Lelgo spoke only to service upon the OCS, the breach element could not be made out against the Defendants.

p. 8
02

Whether the Defendants/Respondents should be committed to civil jail

Holding

Not ripe for determination in view of the finding that no contempt was proved

Reasoning

Because the first issue was resolved against the Plaintiff, the consequential remedies of committal to civil jail or a notice to show cause could not arise. The court declined to consider the six-month committal prayer or a notice to show cause, leaving the matter to be revisited only if contempt were established on a proper foundation against the correct parties on a correctly directed order.

p. 8
03

Whether the OCS Sosiot Police Station should be summoned to explain non-provision of security and non-execution of the warrants of arrest

Holding

Yes; the OCS is summoned to explain non-compliance, as service of the court orders upon him is evidenced on the record

Reasoning

The court noted there was no evidence the OCS was served with the application itself, but there was evidence of service of the court orders upon him, including affidavits of service by Vincent C. Lelgo showing the OCS accepted service and signed returned copies. Finding no impediment, the court exercised its power to summon the OCS to explain why the orders requiring him to provide security during the eviction had not been complied with.

p. 9

Legal principles established

#
  • Four elements must be proved for civil contempt: clear and unambiguous terms of the order binding on the defendant, knowledge or proper notice of the terms, breach of the order, and deliberate conduct, proved to a standard higher than the civil standard
  • Knowledge of a court order suffices to prove service and dispenses with the requirement of personal service for purposes of contempt proceedings
  • Costs follow the event and a successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs unless the court for good reason directs otherwise

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Officer Commanding Police Station (OCS)—Sosiot Police Station is summoned to attend court and explain why he/she has failed to provide security to the Auctioneer and the District Surveyor Kericho for purposes of undertaking eviction on land parcel No. Kericho/Sosiot/768
  2. 2.The Plaintiff/Applicant shall have costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 50
  • Judicature ActSection 5(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3, 3A & 63
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 29
  • Contempt of Court ActSection 34

Cases cited (7)

  • John Githui Gatua (Suing as personal representatives of Michael Kaburia Theuri (Deceased) vs County Government of Turkana & another
    [2018] eKLR
  • Martha Wanjiku Nyutu & 2 Others vs Susan Mwihaki Njoroge & 2 Others
    [2018] KEELC 1654 (KLR)
  • Nthiga v Kimani & 7 Others
    Environment and Land Appeal 007 of 2021 (citation not given)
  • North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v. Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi
    [2016] eKLR
  • Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited
    [2015] KECA 945 (KLR)
  • Basil Criticos Vs Attorney General and 8 Others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Ex parte Langley
    1879, 13 Ch D. 110 (C.A)
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 5 of the Judicature Act; Sections 3, 3A & 63 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Chirchir (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Chebutich Arap Ngeny (Deceased)) v Chairman BOM Kiptaldal Primary School & another (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 8 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 3272 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 29th July, 2025 (arising from Kericho High Court Civil Suit No. 72 of 2005; miscellaneous application number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3272/eng@2026-05-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.