Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Fresh N’ Nice Ltd & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3580 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused to punish Isiolo County officials for breaking an injunction because photos without a required certificate proved nothing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an unopposed application should be granted automatically
No - the applicant must still persuade the court and the court must interrogate the application on its merits
The court held that discretion is judicious, not mechanical. Even absent a replying affidavit, grounds of opposition or preliminary objection, the applicant remains obligated to persuade the court, and the court must discern whether the application merits the orders sought in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court's decision in Gideon Sitelu Konchellah was applied to this effect.
Whether contempt of court was proven against the 3rd interested party
No - the standard for contempt was not met because the sole evidence (photographs) was inadmissible for want of an electronic certificate
The applicant relied solely on photographs annexed to the supporting affidavit. Section 106B of the Evidence Act requires electronic evidence to be accompanied by an electronic certificate. Without it the photographs had no probative value, leaving the application 'made in vacuum' and failing the intermediate standard of proof required for contempt as set out in Mututika v Baharini Farm.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed application does not entitle the applicant to the orders sought as of right; the court must still satisfy itself that the application is meritorious
- Contempt must be proven to the satisfaction of the court, an intermediate standard between balance of probability and beyond reasonable doubt
- Electronic evidence such as photographs must be accompanied by an electronic certificate under section 106B of the Evidence Act, failing which it has no probative value
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated 08.05.2026 be and is hereby Dismissed.
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs of the Application.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 5 of the Judicature Act; Article 159 of the Constitution, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Fresh N’ Nice Ltd & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3580 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (suit property LR No. 7918/736; orders of 09.02.2026 issued in the pending suit). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3580/eng@2026-06-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.