Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2026 (main suit number not stated in judgment)· [2026] KEELC 4371 (KLR)

Registrar Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4371 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (implied by subject matter; not expressly named in judgment)
9 July 2026
EAE. Asati
1,022 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kisumu court dismissed a request to jail a stadium manager over unpaid revenues, ruling that contempt must be proven to a very high standard.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendant in a suit concerning the management and use of Jomo Kenyatta International Stadium – Mamboleo brought a Notice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2026 under section 5 of the Judicature Act, sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It sought, first, an order that the Respondent (the plaintiff in the main suit) refund and pay into Court all monies received from Event Organizers and users of the stadium, and, in the alternative, that the Respondent be committed to civil jail for six months for contempt of the court ruling dated 30th October, 2025, which had allowed the Respondent's injunction application on condition that the Applicant's use and management of the facilities not be curtailed. The application was supported by the affidavit of Simon Onyonyi and opposed by Thadeus Fita, who argued the refund prayer was res judicata and that the plaintiff had not denied the defendant access to the stadium. Written submissions were filed only by the County Attorney – Kisumu for the Applicant. Asati J found that particulars of the event organizers and users were not provided or substantiated and that no obligation to refund monies was demonstrated, rejecting prayer 1. On contempt, the court applied the heightened standard in Mutitika v Baharini Farm Limited and the elements set out in Johari School Limited v Rosemary Wamburu, and held that contempt was not proved to the required standard. The application was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs, and the parties were urged to expedite the hearing of the main suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the refund prayer was established

Holding

Refused; the applicant did not substantiate the monies allegedly collected or any obligation to refund

Reasoning

The court noted that the Memorandum of Understanding had been the subject of previous rulings, including that of 30th October 2025. The particulars of the Event Organizers and users who used the stadium were not provided or substantiated, and no obligation on the plaintiff to hand over or refund money collected was demonstrated. Prayer 1 therefore failed.

p. 2
02

Whether the Respondent was in contempt of the ruling of 30th October, 2025

Holding

No; contempt was not proved to the required heightened standard

Reasoning

The court applied the standard in Mutitika v Baharini Farm Limited and the four elements of contempt set out in Johari School Limited v Rosemary Wamburu. The burden lay on the applicant to demonstrate the elements of contempt to the required strictness of proof, which the court found was not achieved on the material before it.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character which must be proved to a standard higher than proof on a balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond a reasonable doubt
  • The elements of contempt of court are a valid, clear and unambiguous order binding on the respondent; knowledge or proper notice of its terms; breach of the terms; and that the breach was deliberate or willful

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 2nd February, 2026 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the Application
  3. 3.The parties are urged to expedite the hearing and disposal of the main suit
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 5 of the Judicature Act (Cap 8), sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Registrar Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4371 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2026 (main suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4371/eng@2026-07-09

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