Jules Investment Limited & 2 Others v Pherus Arori Monda & 2 Others
The bottom line
#The Kajiado Environment and Land Court dismissed a contempt application because it cited the wrong law and relied on hearsay evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application before me is merited
Key legal issues
#Competence of the contempt application
The application is fatally incompetent for being brought under the wrong provisions of law
The motion cited Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 rule 3 CPR, which make provision for judicial review orders. The correct provision for contempt is Section 5 of the Judicature Act. Citing the wrong provisions rendered the application fatally incompetent.
Scope of leave granted and functus officio
Only the committal prayer fell within the leave granted; prayers for cancellation of titles, production of documents and injunction were struck out
Leave granted on 27th February 2024 was limited to prayer 2 of the chamber summons (leave to apply for committal). The court was functus officio after judgment and could not cancel third parties' titles without hearing them, so prayers 1, 2 and 4 were struck out on the court's own motion.
Evidential sufficiency for contempt
The supporting affidavit relied entirely on hearsay and could not sustain a finding of contempt
The deponent's assertions that the suit land changed hands were based on information from other parties, not personal knowledge. Contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal, the heightened standard of proof applies, and hearsay evidence cannot support a finding of contempt.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC's power to punish for contempt is provided for under Section 5 of the Judicature Act, not the Law Reform Act judicial review provisions
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.The court on its own motion struck out prayers No. 1, 2 and 4 in the motion dated 14th March 2024
- 2.The application dated 14th March 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (as invoked by applicants); contempt jurisdiction under Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Cap 8
Relief refused
#Cancellation of all registrations effected after 30th July 2020 and restoration of the register
Court cannot cancel titles of third parties without hearing them; post-judgment application limited by functus officio
Order compelling Land Registrar to avail green cards and resultant subdivisions
Struck out on court's own motion as outside the leave granted
Committal of 1st, 2nd and 3rd respondents to civil jail for six months
Application fatally incompetent for citing wrong provisions and unsupported by tangible evidence, only hearsay
Injunction restraining respondents from evicting applicants and interested parties
Struck out on court's own motion
Costs
Dismissed with costs to the respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
On the basis of citing the wrong provisions of the law, the application is fatally incompetent.
The court is limited by the doctrine of functus officio in terms of the scope of its authority after rendering a judgement in a case.
the court cannot proceed to cancel titles in the names of 3rd parties without affording them an opportunity to be heard
The court therefore finds and holds that the application dated 14th March, 2024 is not only incompetent but also unmerited. It is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 2026, an apparently impossible future date
Deponent cites order of 24th April 2020 while application concerns order of 30th July 2020
Paragraph 14 refers to 'judgment by Justice Christine Oraro' whereas coram names Justice Christine Ochieng
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jules Investment Limited & 2 Others v Pherus Arori Monda & 2 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 674 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5872/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.