Gichuhi v Reyhan Petroleum Ltd (Environment and Land Case E035 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 5380 (KLR)

disobeyed and contemned the court order issued on 19th November, 2021. 3. That in default of prayer 2 being met, the respondent be committed to civil jail for a period not contempt exceeding six of having court (6) months for deliberately disobeyed orders of the honourable court order issued on 19th November, 2021. 4. That any other order or further orders of the court geared towards protecting the dignity and authority of this honourable court. 5. That the respondent do pay the costs of this application in any event. 2. The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff/applicant sworn on even date. He deposed that the defendant/respondent proposed to have the matter settled amicably and the same was agreed. He went on to depose that the parties recorded a consent which was adopted as an order of the court on 19th November, 2021. That despite being given sufficient time to comply with the said order, the defendant/respondent has refused to abide by the order of this 2|Page court. The RULING ELCC VIRTUALLY ON plaintiff/applicant deposed NO. E035 OF 2020 DELIVERED 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026. that the

page 2 of 16

defendant/respondent is well aware of these orders and its refusal to comply has caused him anguish and frustration. 3. The 2nd application is the notice of motion dated 21st October, 2025 filed by the defendant/respondent, and it is expressed to be brought under Section 5 of the Judicature Act, Sections 1A,1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking the following orders:1. Spent. 2. That this honourable court be pleased to grant leave to the firm of Ojienda & Co. Advocates to come on record in place of Kabage Shikwe Advocates LLP. 3. That this honourable court be pleased to issue an order directed at the plaintiff David Rimau Gichuhi to show cause why he not be committed to civil jail for contempt of the consent order recorded on the 30th September, 2021 for failure to simultaneously grant fresh lease in favour of the defendant over Dagoretti/Ruita/ 7167 and Dagoretti/ Ruita/ 7168. 4. That this honourable court be pleased to issue an order that the plaintiff David Rimau Gichuhi is in contempt of the consent order recorded on 30th September, 2021 for failure to simultaneously grant fresh lease in favour of the 3|Page RULING ELCC VIRTUALLY ON NO. E035 OF 2020 DELIVERED 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 3 of 16

defendant over Dagoretti/Ruita/7167 and Dagoretti/Ruita/7168 and be committed to jail for 6 months or pay a fine of Kshs.10 million. 5. That this honourable court be pleased to issue an order to invoke the doctrine of structural interdict by directing that the defendant do prepare the lease in line with the decree and the same be executed by the deputy registrar ELC division within the next 7 days. 6. That this honourable court be pleased to issue an order directing that the land registrar ardhi sasa do register the lease in line with the decree issued on the 30th September 2021 within the next 30 days. 4. The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the affidavit of Aden Abdikadir Abdi sworn on even date. The defendant/respondent deposed that the plaintiff/applicant is in contempt of the consent dated 30 th September, 2021 for failure to simultaneously grant a fresh lease in its favour over the suit properties. It was deposed that they have tried to reach out to the contemnor but the efforts have been fruitless. Further, that he has not prepared or called for any costs towards preparation and registration of the lease to aid registration. 4|Page RULING ELCC VIRTUALLY ON NO. E035 OF 2020 DELIVERED 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 4 of 16

5. The defendant/respondent deposed that it has already retransferred the suit property known as Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 to the plaintiff/applicant’s name. For this reason, a notice to show cause should issue to the plaintiff on why he should not be committed to civil jail. 6. In response thereto, the plaintiff/applicant filed the replying affidavit sworn on 2nd February, 2026. He deposed that the delay in implementing the consent dated 30 th September, 2021 has been occasioned by the defendant/respondent’s refusal to release the original titles for the suit properties. In response to the meeting held at ardhisasa, he deposed that it was agreed that the defendant/respondent would surrender the original title documents to facilitate the registration of the lease. That pursuant to the consent, the re-transfer of the title and the grant of the lease were to be undertaken simultaneously which he has complied on his part. 7. The plaintiff/applicant deposed that the re-transfer of the title was done on 9th June, 2025 more than 3 years after the filing of his application, and he was not notified that the re-transfer had been completed. He deposed that the application is a calculated attempt to defeat the contempt proceedings and to 5|Page RULING ELCC VIRTUALLY ON NO. E035 OF 2020 DELIVERED 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 5 of 16

shield the defendant/respondent from the consequences of its own disobedience. 8. The 3rd application is the notice of motion dated 2nd February, 2026 filed by the plaintiff/ applicant and it is expressed to be brought under Article 40 of the Constitution, Sections 1A,1B, 3A and 98 of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders:1. Spent. 2. That the defendant/respondent be and are hereby ordered original title to deed forthwith deposit the for parcel no. land Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 currently held by or on behalf of the defendant/respondent, in court under the care and custody of the deputy registrar of this honourable court pending the hearing and determination of this application and/or further orders of the court. 3. That the defendant/respondent be and are hereby ordered original title to deed forthwith deposit the for parcel no. land Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 currently held by or on behalf of the defendant/respondent. 6|Page RULING ELCC VIRTUALLY ON NO. E035 OF 2020 DELIVERED 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 6 of 16

4. That in the event that the respondent fails, neglects and/or refuses to release the original title deed for LR. Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 in the name of the applicant David Rimau Gichuhi, the land registrar, Nairobi lands registry be and is hereby ordered and directed to process and issue a duplicate title deed in the name of the applicant within 30 days from the date of this order, and forthwith bar, restrict, and/or decline the registration of any transfer, charge, lease, sub-lease, variation, extension or other registrable interest whatsoever purporting to emanate from or be supported by the earlier issued title deed presently being unlawfully held as leverage by the 1 st defendant/respondent. 5. That the costs of this application be provided for. 9. The application is premised on the grounds thereof, and further supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff/applicant sworn on even date. He deposed that the defendant/respondent has partially complied with the consent order by effecting the re-transfer of Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 but he has refused and continues to withhold the original title deed. He deposed that parties executed a lease agreement in 7|Page RULING ELCC VIRTUALLY ON NO. E035 OF 2020 DELIVERED 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 7 of 16

2021 but he is unable to register the lease due to failure by the defendant/respondent to release the same. He deposed that as a result of the defendant/respondent actions, he continues to suffer irreparable harm, and no monetary compensation can adequately remedy the loss of his proprietary rights. 10. In response thereto, the defendant/respondent filed its replying affidavit sworn on 13th February, 2026 by Aden Abdikadir Abdi. The defendant/respondent deposed that it initiated the re-transfer of the suit property subject to the consent and several leases were served to the plaintiff/applicant to that effect. Further, that clause 3 of the consent nullified all previous leases, disputed or otherwise allegedly executed by the parties making the plaintiff/applicant’s purported lease void ab initio. 11. All the applications were submissions. The submissions dated 11th defendant/respondent filed canvassed plaintiff/applicant through written filed his written March 2026, while written submissions the dated 13th April, 2026. I have carefully analyzed and considered all the 8|Page applications, RULING ELCC VIRTUALLY ON the replies thereof and the NO. E035 OF 2020 DELIVERED 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026. written

page 8 of 16

submissions. The issue for determination is whether either party is in contempt of the consent order dated 30 th September 2021, and whether the application dated 2 nd February 2026 has merit. 12. It is not in dispute that both parties entered into a consent dated 30 th September 2021 which was adopted as an order of the court on 19 th November 2021 in the following terms:1. That LR. no. Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 be re- transferred back to the plaintiff(David Rimau Gichuhi) at the defendant’s costs but on the understanding that the plaintiff is to simultaneously grant fresh lease(s) in favour of the defendant over the said Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 and Dagoretti/7168. 2. That the basic and main terms of the fresh lease(s) are hereby as follows:LEASE TERM; i. An initial term of twenty (20) years w.e.f 2nd December, 2014 (back dated). ii. A further period of ten (10) years in the same terms as per the initial 20 years subject to the applicable rent increments. 9|Page RULING ELCC VIRTUALLY ON NO. E035 OF 2020 DELIVERED 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 9 of 16

iii. A further ten (10) years on such rental terms as shall be determined by the lessor/plaintiff. RENT: i. From December 2014 to 31st May 2021 (now past) KShs.240,000/- per month. ii. From 1/6/2021 Kshs.270,000/- for a period of 2 ½ years and an expiry of which period rent payable will be reviewed upward increment of 5% after 2 ½ years until the expiry of the initial 30 years. iii. After expiry of the said (30) years, the lease will be renewed for a final and further terms of ten (10) years but on terms to be determined by the plaintiff/ lessor. iv. That upon re-transfer, the fresh lease(s) in favour of the defendant over both L.R no. Dagoretti/ Riruta/7167 and Dagoretti/Riruta/7168 be registered at the defendant’s cost. v. Both the registration of the transfer of L.R no Dagoretti/ Riruta/ 7167 and the lease(s) shall be undertaken by the plaintiff’s advocates in conjunction with 10 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 0 3 5 O F 2 0 2 0 D E L I V E R E D VIRTUALLY ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 10 of 16

the defendant’s advocates herein but on the registration of the transfer, the original title will be retained by the plaintiff. 3. That all previous leases, disputed or otherwise, allegedly executed by the parties be and are hereby nullified and the defendant do cater for costs and preparation and registration of the fresh lease(s). 4. That each party do bear its own costs in regard to the subject suit. 5. That either party shall be at liberty to apply, if need be. 13. It must be noted that the court does not issue orders in vain. The learned judges of the court of appeal in the case of Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] KECA 945 (KLR), held that:“We reiterate here that court orders must be obeyed. Parties against whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity. Obedience of court orders is not optional, rather, it is mandatory and a person does not choose whether to obey a court order or not. For as Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th 11 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 0 3 5 O F 2 0 2 0 D E L I V E R E D VIRTUALLY ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 11 of 16

President of the United States of America once said:“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour’’. The courts should not fold their hands in helplessness and watch as their orders are disobeyed with impunity left, right and centre. This would sacrosanct amount duty to abdication bestowed on us of our by the constitution. The dignity, and authority of the court must be protected.” 14. In the case of Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & another [2005] KLR 828, Ibrahim, J. (as he then was), underscored the importance of obeying court orders, dictating that:“It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law and order that the authority and the dignity of our courts are upheld at all times. 12 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 0 3 5 O F 2 0 2 0 D E L I V E R E D VIRTUALLY ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 12 of 16

The court will not condone deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy away from its responsibility to deal firmly with proved contemnors. It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against whom an order is made by court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until the order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by the order believes it to be irregular or void.” 15. The court observes that the consent dated 30 th September, 2021 was adopted as an order of the court on 19 th November, 2021 which is more than four years ago yet compliance of the same has terribly failed with both parties accusing each other of disobedience. The plaintiff/applicant accuses the defendant/respondent of failing to re-transfer the title to Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 thus hindering his bid to prepare a fresh lease. On the other hand, the defendant/respondent 13 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 0 3 5 O F 2 0 2 0 D E L I V E R E D VIRTUALLY ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 13 of 16

accuses the plaintiff/applicant of failing to prepare a fresh lease as per the orders of the court. 16. The terms of the consent which is an order of the court are quite express, the re-transfer and the grant of the fresh lease were to take place simultaneously. It appears that the defendant/respondent only re-transferred this one property after the filing of the 1 st application by the plaintiff/ applicant. The defendant/respondent is at fault for failing to effect the re-transfer to enable the grant of the fresh lease at the time. While the re-transfer has now been done, the defendant/respondent is to blame for the delay. 17. Secondly, while the title is registered in the name of the plaintiff/applicant, the defendant/respondent has refused to hand the original title to the plaintiff/applicant. The reasons for holding the original title, which isn’t theirs have not been explained. 18. From the above, I find the defendant/respondent in contempt of the orders of this court issued on 19 th November, 2021. I find merit in the notice of motion dated 21 st May 2025, and a notice to show cause is hereby issued 14 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 0 3 5 O F 2 0 2 0 D E L I V E R E D VIRTUALLY ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026. to the

page 14 of 16

defendant/respondent to show cause why it should not be punished for being in contempt of court orders. The notice of motion dated 21st October, 2025 lacks merit, and it is hereby dismissed. I find merit in the notice of motion dated 2 nd February, 2026 and it is allowed as follows:i. The defendant/respondent is hereby ordered to forthwith hand over the original title deed for land Dagoretti/Riruta/7167 parcel no. to the plaintiff/applicant. ii. The plaintiff/applicant is awarded the costs of all the three applications. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. HON. MBOGO C.G. JUDGE 03/09/2026. In the presence of:Mr. Benson Agunga – Court assistant Ms. Mueni for the Plaintiff/Applicant 15 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 0 3 5 O F 2 0 2 0 D E L I V E R E D VIRTUALLY ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 15 of 16

No appearance for the Defendant/Respondent 16 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 0 3 5 O F 2 0 2 0 D E L I V E R E D VIRTUALLY ON 3RD SEPTEMBER 2026.

page 16 of 16