Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC CASE NO. 111 OF 2019· [2026] KEELC 4969 (KLR)

Ogolla & 2 others (Suing as officials of Unimerics Self Help Group)) v Unique Sacco Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case 111 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4969 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 July 2026
NMN.A. Matheka
1,436 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Machakos Environment and Land Court gave defendants 60 days to obey an earlier order or face fines and one month in civil jail each.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs applied by notice of motion dated 20th July 2023 under Sections 4, 5, 7 and 28 of the Contempt of Court Act and Order 51 Rules 1, 2 and 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking the arrest and cross-examination of the current Chairman of the 1st Defendant and the Managing Director/CEO of the 2nd Defendant, a finding of contempt of the court's judgment of 21st November 2022, and committal to imprisonment for six months. The judgment had issued a mandatory order compelling the defendants to issue completion documents within 90 days to enable the plaintiffs to process title documents for their plots. The plaintiffs extracted and served the decree on 11th and 19th May 2023 respectively, with a letter inviting compliance, but the defendants did not comply; the defendants contended the application was incompetent and that they had executed transfer and completion documents. The court set out the legal framework: contempt under section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; the purpose of contempt being to safeguard the rule of law (Teachers Service Commission v KNUT); and the standard of proof being higher than balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt (Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed, quoting Mutitika v Baharini Farm). Finding the defendants mischievous and having taken the orders lightly since 2022, the court found the application merited but, exercising committal powers as a last resort, granted 60 days to comply after service, failing which a fine of Kshs. 50,000/= and committal to civil jail for one month each would follow. Costs were awarded to the applicants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the defendants were in contempt of the judgment/orders of 21st November 2022

Holding

The court found the defendants mischievous and the application merited, but granted a conditional compliance order rather than immediate committal

Reasoning

The court noted the judgment issued a mandatory order compelling the defendants to issue completion documents within 90 days. The decree was extracted on 11th May 2023 and served on 19th May 2023. Despite requests for time, the defendants had not completed the process from 2022 to date. The court held court orders must be obeyed and found the application merited.

p. 7
02

Standard of proof applicable in contempt proceedings

Holding

Higher than balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt

Reasoning

Relying on Supreme Court authority in Republic vs Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed quoting Mutitika v Baharini Farm, the court confirmed contempt is quasi-criminal; because liberty is at stake, committal must be exercised with utmost care and only as a last resort.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than on a balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt
  • Courts punish contempt to safeguard the rule of law, not to placate the applicant or the judge

Court orders

#
  1. 1.That the Defendants comply with the court order issued on 3rd August 2022 within the next 60 days after service, failure of which they will be cited for contempt and directed to pay a fine of Kshs. 50,000/= and in default the 1st Defendant and its Current Chairman and the 2nd Defendant and its Managing Director/CEO to be committed to civil jail for one month each
  2. 2.Costs of the application to the applicants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Contempt of Court ActSections 4, 5, 7 and 28
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rules 1, 2 & 3; Order 40 Rule 3(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 63(c)

Cases cited (3)

  • Teachers Service Commission vs Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 others
    (2013) eKLR
  • Republic vs Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another
    (2018) eKLR
  • Mutitika v. Baharini Farm Limited
    [1985] KLR 229, 234
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 4, 5, 7 and 28 of the Contempt of Court Act; Order 51 Rules 1, 2 & 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ogolla & 2 others (Suing as officials of Unimerics Self Help Group)) v Unique Sacco Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case 111 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 4969 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC CASE NO. 111 OF 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4969/eng@2026-07-28

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