Kilonzo t/a Kokomo Beach Bar and Restaurant & another v County Executive Committee Member for Lands, Physical Planning, Housing and Urbanization & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3418 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court declined to jail anyone for contempt but gave the County Government of Kilifi and the resort 60 days to demolish the illegal beach structure and restore the riparian land.
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 alleged contemnors disobeyed the court orders of 16th September 2025
- 2.Whether the applicant established the threshold for contempt of court
- 3.What orders, if any, should issue to give effect to the judgment of 16th September 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether contempt was established against the alleged contemnors
The court declined to punish the alleged contemnors, holding that no direct order compelling demolition had been disobeyed; it instead clarified the judgment and set a compliance timeframe.
The court reviewed the 16 September 2025 judgment, which found the enforcement and demolition procedures unconstitutional for lack of a hearing, and the petitioners' building condemned under EMCA and PLUPA. It held that no order compelled instant demolition, so punishment for contempt was inappropriate; the correct course was to clarify the judgment and give a binding timeframe so the parties could no longer claim no demolition order existed.
The effect of the two prior orders in this court's litigation with the parties
The earlier demolition order was never set aside nor appealed; the judgment merely required a hearing before enforcement. The cumulative effect is that the County Government must now remove the structure and restore the riparian land.
The County Government had earlier found the structure illegal and partially demolished it; the judgment of 16 September 2025 confirmed illegality but required compliance with fair-hearing procedures. Since sufficient time for that process had expired, the court directed joint removal of the structure and restoration of the riparian zone within 60 days.
Legal principles established
#- A court hearing an environmental petition under the Constitution may issue a wide range of reliefs under Article 23, whose list is not exhaustive
- Every wrong has a remedy in environmental law
Court orders
#- 1.The petitioners and the respondents shall jointly and severally, within 60 days from the date of the order, remove or demolish the petitioners' structure and restore the riparian zone it occupies to its natural state before the development commenced
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs of the present application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the ELC to punish contempt and enforce its orders; Article 23(3) of the Constitution (reliefs under environmental petitions)
Relief refused
#Committal to civil jail of Agnes Nthenya Kilonzo, Edmund Mwalimu and Jane Maiki Kamto for up to 6 months
The court declined to punish the alleged contemnors, finding no direct demolition order had been disobeyed and instead clarified the judgment's effect
Costs
Each party shall bear their own costs of the present application.
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.
The petitioners and the respondents herein shall jointly and severally within 60 days from the date of this order remove or demolish the petitioners' structure and they shall restore the riparian zone it now occupies to the natural state it was in before in the development was commenced thereon;
Each party shall bear their own costs of the present application.
This court’s interpretation of Article 23(3) of the Constitution is that the list of reliefs listed therein is not exhaustive.
It is not conceivable that there is any wrong without a remedy in our environmental law justice sphere; the Latin maxim ubi jus ibi remedium still applies.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is internally inconsistent as to whether it refuses or grants contempt punishment, first stating it will not punish, then directing demolition
The judgment appears to refer to a stay expiring on '3rd of February 2022' when the matter dates from 2024-2025, an apparent date error
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kilonzo t/a Kokomo Beach Bar and Restaurant & another v County Executive Committee Member for Lands, Physical Planning, Housing and Urbanization & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 27/11/2025 in ELCLPET E013 of 2024 (formerly ELCPET E013 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3418/eng@2026-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.