Ngaine

but on 9.1.2024, the 1st defendant poured construction materials on the site, chased away the plainti’s guards replacing them with her goons, demolished the structures and the gate and commenced construction on the suit property. 3. The plainti contends that she reported the matter to the Kasarani police station, but no action was taken as the police held the opinion that the suit land belonged to the 2nd defendant. 4. There is also a supporting adavit of one Oltingidi Ole Kereto, a guard employed by the plainti. He has given an account of how construction materials were brought to the site in January 2024, of which goons invaded the property on 12.1.2024 and attacked them. 5. The 1st defendant has opposed the application vide her replying adavit dated 24.1.2024 where she denies the allegations levelled against her, contending that even the photographs availed by the applicant are not clear and were taken randomly. She urges the court to dismiss the application with costs. 6. I have considered all the arguments raised herein. It is on record that on 9.2.2023, this court delivered a ruling in respect of applications for injunction by the claimants in the two suits E339 of 2022 (application dated 13.10.2022) and in E284 of 2022 (application dated 7.9.2022) in which the court gave orders of maintenance of status quo. The court cannot revisit the issue of injunction, having pronounced itself in the aforementioned ruling. 7. The question therefore falling for determination is whether the aforementioned orders of maintenance of status quo have been violated. In order to determine the aforementioned question, the court did direct the Deputy Registrar of this court to visit the site and le a report of which, the said report was duly led which indicates that a construction was underway and had reached 1st oor stage. The photographs taken at the site conrmed this state of aairs. In the ruling of 9.2.2023 at paragraph 20, the court had observed that “nothing much appears to have been done on the land”. But now a year later, a building is on the 1st oor stage. And the 1st defendant wants this court to believe that she has not violated court orders! 8. The provisions of Section 5 of the Judicature Act provides for the punishment of contempt of court in the following terms: “ (1). The High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have the same power to punish for contempt of court as is for the time being possessed by the High Court of justice in England, and that power shall extend to upholding the authority and dignity of the subordinate courts.” 9. In the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 Others [2020] eKLR, the court stated that; “ …The test for when disobedience of a civil order constitutes contempt has come to be stated as whether the breach was committed ‘deliberately and mala de.’ 10. The applicant has given graphic details of how the 1st defendant has violated the order of maintenance of status quo by chasing away her guards, bringing her own people who attacked the guards and commenced construction. It is pertinent to note that even the site visit sanction by the court faced imminent danger as an attack by alleged armed gangsters just happened. 11. I nd that this is not only a case of willful disobedience of court orders, but it is a brazen attack on the overall administration of justice which should not be left unpunished. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/13601/eng@2024-12-05 2

page 2 of 3

12. In the end, I partially nd that the application dated 15.1.2024 is merited and I proceed to give the following orders; 1. The 1st defendant in E339 OF 2022 is hereby found guilty of contempt of court orders of 9.2.2023. A notice to show cause as to why the 1st defendant, Jennifer Wangari Kamau should not be punished for contempt is hereby issued. 2. No further activities including construction are to be undertaken on the suit property, and the OCS of the nearest police station is to ensure compliance with the said order. 3. The 1st defendant, Jennifer Wangari Kamau is hereby condemned to pay the costs of the application. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 5th DAY OF DECEMBER 2024 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: Musesya and Mutegi for Plaintis in 339/2022 Mugo for 1st Defendant in 339/2022 Omuyama holding brief for Wachira for 2nd and 3rd Defendants in 339/2022 Court Assistant: Vena https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/13601/eng@2024-12-05 3

page 3 of 3