Al Bayt Properties Ltd t/a Al Bayt Properties Hotel v Hannington & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E063 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3791 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to jail company directors and a regulator for contempt because the applicants skipped mandatory procedural steps before seeking committal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the contempt application was defective for failure to extract and serve a decree
The application was premature and defective because no formal decree had been prepared, issued or served as required by Order 21 Rule 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, and the Applicants offered no explanation for the omission
Order 21 Rule 8(2) mandates that a party prepare a draft decree, obtain the other parties' approval, and have the registrar sign and seal it. The Applicants did not deny failing to extract a decree and offered no explanation, nor evidence of obstruction by the other parties. Compliance with these mandatory provisions is a foundation for contempt proceedings, and its absence renders the application incompetent.
Whether directors of a company and the Director General of a statutory body could be committed to civil jail without being joined and personally served
No - the alleged contemnors must be specifically identified, joined as parties and personally served; the directors were not proceeded against after lifting the corporate veil and the Director General was neither joined in his individual capacity nor served
Contempt proceedings are penal in nature and personal liberty is at stake, so the individual responsible must be clearly named and given an opportunity to respond. A company acts only through natural persons, and directors are not personally liable absent a reasoned judicial decision lifting the corporate veil. The Director General of NEMA, a statutory body, was not joined personally or served. These omissions offend natural justice and render the application incompetent.
Whether the elements of contempt (clear order, notice, breach, deliberateness) were established
Only the first element (clarity of the order) was established; notice, breach of a known obligation and willfulness were not established, so contempt was not proved
The Tribunal's demolition order was clear and binding, but the court could not presume knowledge for the 3rd Respondent, whose counsel was absent when judgment was delivered, and no affidavit of service was presented. The 5th May 2025 letter did not constitute formal service. Without proper notice, the inaction could not be characterised as a breach of a known obligation, and intentionality presumes knowledge. No communication showed the Appellant's failure was brought to the 3rd Respondent's attention.
Legal principles established
#- In contempt proceedings where committal is sought, the alleged contemnor must be specifically identified, joined as a party, and personally served because personal liberty is at stake
- Directors are not personally liable for a company's actions unless the corporate veil has been lifted by a reasoned judicial decision
- A contempt application founded on non-compliance with a judgment cannot proceed where no decree has been extracted, issued and served as mandated by Order 21 Rule 8(2)
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 6th May 2025 seeking committal of the Appellants and the Director General of NEMA to civil jail for contempt is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
- On appeal from
- National Environment Tribunal
- Not stated
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act and Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; motion brought under Order 40 Rule 3(1) & (2), Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Al Bayt Properties Ltd t/a Al Bayt Properties Hotel v Hannington & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E063 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3791 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3791/eng@2026-06-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.