Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC.E231.2024-NBI· [2026] KEELC 5221 (KLR)

Kiambati v Embakasi Ranching Co Ltd (Environment and Land Case E231 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5221 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 August 2026
JKJ. G. Kemei
1,179 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff filed a notice of motion dated 17/12/2025 seeking contempt orders against the directors of the defendant for disobeying a judgment delivered on 13/3/25, in which the defendant was ordered to show the plaintiff the physical location of plots MA 155, MA 156, MA 157 and MA 158, grant vacant possession, and process documents to facilitate issuance of titles. The application was unopposed. The court defined contempt, cited Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, Section 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and applied Gatharia K. Mutikika v Baharini Farm Limited and Republic v Attorney General Ex parte Mike Maina Kamau, which require proof beyond the balance of probabilities that the order was clear and binding, that the contemnor had notice, breached it, and did so deliberately. Finding that the judgment, decree and notice of entry of judgment were served and acknowledged, and that the respondent had taken no steps to comply, the court held the directors in wilful contempt and allowed the application as prayed. The directors were given 45 days to purge the contempt, failing which they must attend court for mitigation and sentencing. No order as to costs was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the defendant's directors were in contempt of the judgment issued on 13/3/25

Holding

The court found contempt established: the judgment, decree and notice of entry of judgment were served, the respondent was aware, and it took no steps to comply, thereby wilfully disobeying the orders.

Reasoning

The court restated the four elements of civil contempt from Gatharia K. Mutikika v Baharini Farm Ltd and Republic v Attorney General Ex parte Mike Maina Kamau. It found the 13/3/25 judgment clear and binding, served on the defendant and acknowledged, and that the defendant, though aware, took no steps to comply, amounting to wilful and deliberate disobedience. The court held the directors in contempt and allowed the motion.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt of court is in the nature of criminal proceedings, attracting a higher standard of proof than the balance of probabilities
  • An applicant for contempt must prove four elements: clear and unambiguous order binding on the defendant, knowledge or proper notice, breach, and deliberate conduct
  • Punishment for contempt is not light; the contemnor's liberty is at stake

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application is allowed as prayed
  2. 2.The directors of the defendant company are ordered to purge the contempt within forty-five (45) days
  3. 3.In default of purging the contempt, the directors shall attend court for mitigation and sentencing
  4. 4.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act and Order 40 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kiambati v Embakasi Ranching Co Ltd (Environment and Land Case E231 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5221 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC.E231.2024-NBI. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5221/eng@2026-08-06

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