Joseph Muturi Muikia v Willy Kihara Njoki Kanyotu & Hezekiah Kariuki Mwangi

their agents, servants or employees or anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf or otherwise howsoever from entering into, trespassing, occupying, conducting any works whatsoever, alienating, disposing off or in any other manner interfering with the Plaintiff's access to, quiet possession, occupation, user and/or enjoyment of all those parcels of land known as L.R. No. 11261/44 and L.R. No. 11261/45 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter partes. 3) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to order the issuance of a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves and/or their agents, servants or employees or anyone authorized by them or acting on their behalf or otherwise howsoever from entering into, trespassing, occupying, conducting any works whatsoever, alienating, disposing off or in any other manner interfering with the Plaintiff's access to, quiet possession, occupation, user and/or enjoyment of all those parcels of land known as L.R. No. 11261/44 and L.R. No. 11261/45 pending the hearing and determination of this suit. 4) THAT the costs of this application be provided for. ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 2|Page

page 2 of 25

2. The Application is based on the grounds on the face of it and the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff/Applicant Joseph Muturi Muikia of even date. 3. In the Supporting Affidavit, the Plaintiff, Joseph Muturi Muikia, deposes that he is the lawful proprietor of land parcels L.R. Nos. 11261/44 (Title No. IR No. 88739) and 11261/45 (Title No. IR No. 88740) in Ruiru, Kiambu County, as evidenced by Certificates of Title annexed as Exhibits JMM/1 and JMM/2. He states that he purchased these properties in 2008 from Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited, supporting his ownership with Exhibits JMM/3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which comprise the Sale Agreement dated 21/07/2008, Transfers dated 8/03/2012, stamp duty payslips and voucher, land rent pay-in slips, rates clearance certificates, and banker's cheques and receipts. 4. The Plaintiff explains that on 12/11/2025, after being alerted by his brother, he visited unauthorized construction individuals stated who the properties works they being were and found conducted acting on the by 1 st Defendant's instructions. He deposes that the 1 st Defendant initiated these development works without any legal right or permission and has refused to stop, acting illegally to deprive him of his proprietary rights, access, and rental income. Furthermore, the Plaintiff notes that the 1 st Defendant fraudulently and illegally purported to sell the properties to the 2nd Defendant, who now claims a beneficial ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 3|Page

page 3 of 25

interest; this claim is substantiated by Exhibit JMM/9, a copy of an affidavit sworn by the 2 nd Defendant stating he purchased the land for valuable consideration. 5. Concluding that the 1st Defendant had no legal capacity to pass good title, the Plaintiff maintains that Court intervention and injunctive orders are urgently required to prevent the Defendants from further alienating or altering the land, which would cause severe, non-compensable, and irreparable loss. 6. The 1st Defendant/Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 26/01/2026 by Willy Kihara Njoki Kanyotu, opposing the Plaintiff’s application, asserting that it is unmerited, constitutes an abuse of the Court process, and should be struck out with costs. The 1st Defendant claims lawful ownership of L.R. Nos. 11261/44 and 45, explaining that the suit properties were originally owned by Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited, a company in which his late father, James Kanyotu, held a 99.9% majority shareholding, as evidenced by an official search of the CR12 which is annexed as Exhibit WKNK1. He deposes that his late father gifted him the suit properties on 5/12/2007, relying on Exhibit WKNK2 comprising the gift letter and a verification letter confirming his father's signature/thumbprint) to contend that Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited could not have sold the properties to the Plaintiff in July 2008. Consequently, the 1 st Defendant asserts that he legally sold the suit land to the 2 nd Defendant ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 4|Page

page 4 of 25

on 19/07/2023 attaching a copy of the sale agreement as Exhibit WKNK2 and subsequently handed over physical possession. 7. He averred that maintaining continuous possession of the suit properties since December 2007, the 1 st Defendant emphasizes that the Plaintiff has never had possession of the land. He further challenges the validity of the Plaintiff’s title documents, pointing out from Exhibit WKNK1 that Mary Wanjiku Kanyotu and John Kariuki Kanyotu, who allegedly executed the transfer forms attached by the Plaintiff, were not directors of Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited and thus lacked legal capacity to transfer the properties. Lastly, the 1 st Defendant states that Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited never authorized the sale or advertising of the properties, and notes that he reported the law firm of Kahari and Kiai Advocates to the police for fraud and intermeddling in his father's estate, leading to a police recommendation for prosecution as reflected in a letter from DCI Ruiru Police Station annexed as Exhibit WKNK3. 8. On his part, the 2nd Defendant filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 9/03/2026 by Hezekiah Kariuki Mwangi opposing the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion applications dated 24/11/2025, and 4/03/2026, stating that he does not know the Plaintiff and has not purchased any property belonging to him. He deposes that he purchased the suit property along with adjacent parcels from the 1st Defendant on 19/07/ 2023, ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 5|Page

page 5 of 25

and immediately took possession, relying on a copy of the sale agreement annexed as Exhibit HKM1. The 2nd Defendant asserts that the 1st Defendant was in physical possession at the time of the sale while the Plaintiff was not, and notes that he subsequently fenced off the property and constructed a semi-permanent house on the suit land, supported by copies of photographs annexed as Exhibit HKM2. 9. I will now move to the second Application dated 4/03/2026. It is brought under Order 40 Rules 1 and 3, Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B, 3C and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the law. The Applicant has sought the following orders: i. Spent ii. THAT the Defendants herein be cited for contempt of this Honourable Court’s Order of 11th February 2026. iii. THAT the 1st and 2nd Defendants be committed to civil jail for a period of not less than six (6) months. iv. THAT the 1st and 2nd Defendants be penalised such sum as this Honourable Court shall deem appropriate. v. THAT the costs of this application be provided for. ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 6|Page

page 6 of 25

10. In the Supporting Affidavit, the Plaintiff, Joseph Muturi Muikia, deposes that on 24/11/2025, the Court issued a temporary injunction restraining all parties from engaging in construction, sales, transfers, or any other activity on the suit property, as evidenced by a copy of the order annexed as Exhibit JM/1. He explains that during the subsequent Court mention on 11/02/2026 with counsel for both the 1 st and 2nd Defendants in attendance the Court extended the injunctive order to 27/05/2026, and ordered the 2nd Defendant to file a response within fourteen days; a copy of this extended order and proof of service upon counsel is annexed as Exhibit JM/2. 11. his The Plaintiff states that the 2 nd Defendant failed to file response and deliberately breached the Court's directions. Specifically, on 24/02/2026, after receiving an urgent call from his brother, Daniel Muikia, the Plaintiff learned that the 2nd Defendant had dispatched a mob of nearly fifty men armed with wooden clubs to the suit land around 11:00 am. These individuals physically assaulted the Plaintiff's guard stationed on site, dug trenches, and commenced building a permanent house, with photographs showing the ongoing illegal construction works annexed as Exhibit JM/3. Emphasizing that this deliberate disobedience directly undermines judicial authority, the Plaintiff maintains that the Defendants' conduct is strictly contemptuous of the ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 7|Page

page 7 of 25

Court order of 11/02/2026, and warrants immediate penal consequences. 12. The 1st Defendant Willy Kihara Njoki Kanyotu in opposition to the Application filed a Replying Affidavit sworn on 18/03/2026. The 1st Defendant denies being in contempt of Court or breaching any Court orders, maintaining that the Plaintiff’s application constitutes an abuse of the Court process. 13. In support of his position, the 1 st Defendant reiterates the contents of his previous Replying Affidavit sworn on 26/01/2026. He asserts that he was the lawful owner of the suit property and lawfully sold it to the 2 nd Defendant in 2023, handing over possession at that time. He affirms that the 2nd Defendant, rather than the Plaintiff, holds possession of the property and has since fenced it off and erected structures on it. Because he is no longer in possession of the suit property, the 1st Defendant contends that he has not violated any orders of the Court, adding that to his knowledge, the 2nd Defendant has not breached any Court orders either. Consequently, he requests that both the suit and the application be struck out for lack of merit and as an abuse of the Court process. 14. Addressing the application dated 4/03/2026, the 2 nd Defendant denies being in contempt of Court orders. He explains that he was already in possession and had constructed the structure before the initial application was ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 8|Page

page 8 of 25

filed and served upon him. While maintaining that he remains in possession, he affirms that he has ceased all further development on the suit property in compliance with the interim preservation orders pending the determination of the November 24, 2025 application. Denying any breach of Court orders, the 2nd Defendant contends that the Plaintiff is misrepresenting facts under oath to illegally gain possession prior to trial, concluding that both applications lack merit, constitute an abuse of Court process, and should be dismissed with costs. 15. The parties canvassed the Applications by way of written submissions. The Plaintiff/Applicant filed his written submissions dated 28/04/2026 through Opondo & Company Advocates to the Application dated 24/11/2025. The 2nd Defendant filed joint submissions relating the Application dated 24/11/2025 and 4/03/2026. Additionally, the Plaintiff/Applicant filed written submissions dated 8/05/2026 in respect of the Application dated 4/03/2026 and the 1 st Defendant field their written submissions dated 26/05/2026 to the same Application. 16. In support of the Notice of Motion application dated 24/11/2025 seeking interlocutory injunctive orders against the Defendants over suit properties L.R. No. 11261/44 and L.R. No. 11261/45, the Plaintiff/Applicant submits that it has fully satisfied the settled triple-standard threshold for the grant of temporary injunctions as enunciated in Giella v. ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 9|Page

page 9 of 25

Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358 and reaffirmed in Nguruman Limited v. Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR, CA No. 77 of 2012. Relying on Mrao Limited v. First American Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 Others [2005] eKLR, the Plaintiff contends that it has established a prima facie case with a high probability of success by producing Certificates of Title, Sale Agreements, payment receipts, and Stamp Duty slips, which demonstrate valid constitutional land ownership under Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 17. In addition, he states that as the absolute and indefeasible registered proprietor under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012, the Plaintiff’s title cannot be impeached by the 1 st Defendant’s unfounded claims of an oral or written "gift" from the late James Kanyotu. Citing Tigris Developers Limited v. Willy Kihara Njoki & 2 Others; Kangaita Coffee Estates Limited (Interested Party) [2021] eKLR, the Plaintiff submits that the original vendor was Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited a distinct body corporate and persona jurisdica and that the 1st Defendant possesses no locus standi to alienate corporate assets or pass a good title to the 2 nd Defendant, particularly when the suit properties were not included in their purposed 2023 Agreement for Sale nor in any alleged 2007 gift letter. ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 10 | P a g e

page 10 of 25

18. On the second and third limbs of the Giella criteria, the Applicant invokes the judicial standards articulated in Pius Kipchirchir Kogo v. Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] eKLR regarding irreparable injury and the balance of convenience. The Plaintiff maintains that it faces continuous, irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated in damages due to the Defendants' ongoing acts of trespass, physical harassment of workers, damage to construction materials, and deployment of hired goons to assert forcibly staged occupation. The Plaintiff demonstrates that if the injunctive relief is withheld and the main suit ultimately succeeds, the comparative Applicant mischief through and prejudice suffered brazen alienation, illegal by the structural developments, and deprivation of quiet enjoyment would far outweigh any inconvenience visited upon the Defendants. 19. Accordingly, the Plaintiff prays that this Honourable Court finds the 1st Defendant’s claims legally unmeritorious and grants the temporary injunctive orders as prayed in the Notice of Motion application dated 24/11/2025 with costs to the Applicant. 20.As already stated, none of the Defendants/Respondents filed any written submissions to the Application. 21.The Applicant submits with regard to the Application dated 4/03/2026, he seeks orders to cite the 1st and 2nd Defendants for contempt of the Honourable Court’s Order issued on 11/02/2026, commit them to civil jail for a period of not less ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 11 | P a g e

page 11 of 25

than six (6) months, penalise them in such sum as the Court shall deem appropriate, and award costs. 22.On the applicable law, the Applicant submits that the inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt exists to preserve the dignity, authority, and majesty of the Court, thereby safeguarding the rule of law. It is urged that orders of the Court are binding edicts that require unconditional obedience by all parties and are not mere suggestions or decorative instruments adorned with formal seals. Consequently, any intentional non-compliance or disregard of Court orders undermines the administration of justice and warrants punitive sanction to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings. 23.Regarding the underlying facts, the Applicant emphasizes that the Court order of 24/11/2025, as extended on 11/02/2026, explicitly restrained all activities and construction on the suit properties by all parties irrespective of possession. The Defendants, through their legal representation, have not disputed knowledge or cognizance of the said injunctive orders. While the Defendants rely heavily on the issue of possession which the Applicant vehemently controverts at paragraphs 19 and 20 of his Further Affidavit sworn on 30/03/ 2026 the Applicant maintains that ongoing construction cannot be sanitized by pending disputes over title or possession. Furthermore, the 2nd Defendant’s deposition at paragraph 11 of his Replying ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 12 | P a g e

page 12 of 25

Affidavit that he has ceased further developments amounts to an indirect admission of a deliberate and willful breach of the Court orders, entitling the Applicant to the orders sought. 24.The 1st Defendant/Respondent’s Written Submissions dated 26/05/2026 strongly oppose the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion application dated 4/03/2026, which seeks orders citing the Defendants for contempt of Court orders dated 11/02/2026, committing them to civil jail for a period of not less than six (6) months, penalising them, and awarding costs. The Applicant asserts that despite the extension of temporary injunctive orders prohibiting activities on the suit property, the Defendants allegedly deputized an armed group to dig trenches and construct a permanent house. The 1st Defendant contends that the application is devoid of merit and an abuse of Court process, arguing that as the former owner who lawfully sold and transferred possession of the property to the 2nd Defendant in 2023, he is neither in possession nor engaged in any construction activities thereon, thus rendering the allegations of contempt baseless. 25.For the 1st Defendant/Respondent, regarding the applicable legal framework and evidentiary thresholds, the 1 st Defendant submits that pursuant to Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act (Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya), the legal burden of proof rests firmly upon the party who asserts a fact. Citing the decision in Mbuthia Macharia v Annah ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 13 | P a g e

page 13 of 25

Mutua & Another [2017] eKLR, the 1st Defendant highlights that while the legal burden remains on the Applicant, the evidential burden shifts based on the weight of evidence adduced. Furthermore, in emphasizing the standard of proof required in quasi-criminal proceedings, the 1st Defendant relies on the Supreme Court Ruling in Githiga & 5 Others v Kiru Tea Factory Company Ltd [2023] KESC 41 (KLR), which reaffirmed Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another [2018] eKLR and Mutitika v Baharini Farm Limited [1985] KLR 229, establishing that the standard of proof in contempt of Court proceedings must be higher than a mere balance of probabilities, operating almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt. 26.He submits that applying these statutory and judicial principles to the facts, the 1 st Defendant acknowledges the Court’s jurisdiction under Section 5 of the Judicature Act to enforce its orders, as well as the requisite elements of civil contempt outlined in Mathenge v Munyao [2025] KEHC 2057 (KLR) and Samuel Mweru & others v National Land Commission & Others [2020] KEHC 9233 (KLR) namely, clear terms, knowledge, failure to comply, and deliberate or willful breach. While conceding that the injunctive orders of 24/11/2025 were unambiguous and known to the parties, the 1st Defendant asserts that he has committed no deliberate breach as he exercises no physical ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 14 | P a g e

page 14 of 25

control over the property. Concurrently, the 1 st Defendant maintains that the 2nd Defendant, who has been in continuous possession and developed the land prior to the orders, has similarly not breached the status quo. Consequently, the 1st Defendant submits that the Applicant has failed to discharge the heightened evidential burden, praying that the application dated 4/03/2026 be dismissed with costs. 27.The 2nd Defendant/Respondent’s Written Submissions dated 22/07/2026 strongly oppose the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Applications dated 24/11/2025 seeking temporary injunctive relief and 4/03/2026 seeking citation for contempt of Court, committal to civil jail, monetary penalties, and costs. Adopting and relying upon the submissions of the 1 st Defendant, the 2nd Defendant deposes that he purchased the suit property alongside other parcels from the 1 st Defendant on 19/07/2023, took actual physical possession, erected a perimeter fence, and constructed structures prior to the institution of this suit. The 2nd Defendant asserts that the Applicant was never in possession, holds no proprietary interest, and is employing these applications to illegally dispossess him before full trial. It is further submitted that upon the issuance of interim status quo orders prohibiting further dealings, the 2nd Defendant immediately halted all ongoing developments, thereby maintaining the existing ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 15 | P a g e

page 15 of 25

state of affairs and defeating any claim of contempt or entitlement to injunctive relief. 28.On the applicable statutory and case law principles, the 2 nd Defendant contends that pursuant to Sections 107 and 108 of the Evidence Act Chapter 80 of the Laws of Kenya, the burden of proving any alleged breach rests squarely on the Applicant. Addressing the standard of proof in quasi-criminal contempt proceedings, the 2nd Defendant places reliance on the Supreme Court Ruling in Githiga & 5 Others v Kiru Tea Factory Company Ltd [supra], which reaffirmed Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed & Another [supra] and the Court of Appeal precedent in Mutitika v Baharini Farm Limited [supra], establishing that contempt must be established to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities, operating almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt. 29.In assessing whether the constituent elements of contempt are satisfied, the 2nd Defendant invokes Section 5 of the Judicature Act alongside the judicial tests articulated in Mathenge v Munyao [supra]) and Samuel Mweru & others v National Land Commission & others [supra]. While conceding that the order of 24/11/2025 was clear and known to the parties, the 2nd Defendant maintains that the Applicant has failed to prove any deliberate, willful, or intentional violation, as all construction activities ceased immediately upon service of the order. Consequently, the 2 nd ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 16 | P a g e

page 16 of 25

Defendant submits that the Applicant has failed to discharge the heightened evidentiary burden, and prays that both the Notice of Motion dated 24/11/2025 and the application dated 4/03/2026 be dismissed with costs. Issues for Determination 30.In considering the Notice of Motion applications dated 24/11/2025 and 4/03/2026, together with the supporting affidavits, replying affidavits, and written submissions filed on behalf of the respective parties, two central issues emerge for determination by this Court. 1) Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant has satisfied the legal criteria for the grant of interlocutory injunctive orders pending the hearing and determination of the main suit over land parcels L.R. No. 11261/44 and L.R. No. 11261/45. 2) Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents have acted in deliberate disobedience of the Court’s preservation orders issued on 24/11/2025 and extended on 11/02/2026 so as to warrant citation and committal to civil jail for contempt of Court. Analysis and Determination 31. In analysing the first issue, the Court must evaluate the application for temporary injunction against established equitable principles governing interlocutory relief. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, an injunction is defined as a Court order commanding or forbidding an action, designed to ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 17 | P a g e

page 17 of 25

prevent future injury or preserve the status quo. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 24, (4th Edition), paragraph 853, the learned authors observe that the primary object of an interlocutory injunction is to protect the Applicant against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favor at the trial. In assessing whether a prima facie case exists, this Court is guided by the foundational definition articulated by Spry V-P in the East Africa Court of Appeal decision of Fast Eastern Africa Limited versus Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [1978] eKLR, where it was observed that a prima facie case is one in which the material before the Court shows that the Applicant has a right which has been infringed and for which an explanation is required from the opposite party. Further, in the classic judgment of American Cyanamid Co versus Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396, Lord Diplock stated verbatim: "The object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the Plaintiff against injury by violation of his rights for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial; but the Plaintiff’s need for such protection must be weighed against the corresponding need of the Defendant to be ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 18 | P a g e

page 18 of 25

protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated under the Plaintiff’s undertaking in damages." 32.Analyzing the facts presented, the Plaintiff has exhibited official certificates of title registered under the Land Registration Act, Sale Agreements, transfer forms executed by registered entities, stamp duty receipts, and rate clearance certificates. Conversely, the 1 st Defendant asserts ownership derived from an unregistered gift letter from his late father, claiming a majority shareholding in the vendor company, Kangaita Coffee Estate Limited, and alleging that the former directors who executed the Plaintiff's transfer lacked legal capacity. Under Kenyan property law, a corporate persona is distinct from its individual shareholders, and an unregistered gift cannot override a statutory title issued under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act. The Plaintiff has thus demonstrated a prima facie case with a high probability of success. On the question of irreparable injury, the Plaintiff faces ongoing structural alterations and interference with quiet possession. Land carries unique sentimental, proprietary, and commercial value; unauthorized development on a registered parcel constitutes an irreversible modification that cannot be fully cured by a monetary award. Weighing the balance of convenience, the ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 19 | P a g e

page 19 of 25

scale heavily tilts toward preserving the property in its current state to avoid alienating the suit lands or creating irreversible third-party equities before full trial. 33.On the second issue, the application for contempt of Court requires a critical examination of the nature and standard of proof governing penal sanctions. Black’s Law Dictionary defines civil contempt as the failure to obey a Court order issued for the benefit of the opposing party in a civil proceeding. In Halsbury’s Laws of England, Volume 9(1), 4th Edition, paragraph 494, it is noted that contempt by disobedience to orders of Court is a deliberate failure to comply with an order requiring a person to abstain from doing a specified act. Because contempt proceedings carry the risk of deprivation of personal liberty, the evidentiary standard is higher than a standard civil balance of probabilities, operating close to the criminal threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The essential elements to establish civil contempt are the existence of a clear, unambiguous order, knowledge or notice of the order by the alleged contemnor, and deliberate, willful non-compliance or disobedience. 34.In considering the authority and binding nature of Court orders, Ringera J (as he then was) eloquently observed in Econet Wireless Kenya Limited versus Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another [2005] eKLR verbatim: ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 20 | P a g e

page 20 of 25

"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. The Court will not condone deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy responsibility to deal firmly is the contemnors. It plain away from with and its proved unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of, whom an order is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged." 35.Furthermore, in Hadkinson versus Hadkinson [1952] 2 All ER 567, Romer LJ underscored the strict nature of Court orders by stating verbatim: "It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of, whom an order is made by a Court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of the obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be wrong or that it ought not to have been made." 36.Applying these principles to the evidence, the Court notes that interim preservation orders prohibiting construction, alienation, and interference were issued on 24/11/2025 and ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 21 | P a g e

page 21 of 25

extended in the presence of counsel for both Defendants on 11/02/2026. Knowledge of the orders is not disputed. The Plaintiff adduced photographic evidence showing active trenching and construction works taking place on 24/02/2026. The 2nd Defendant, while denying intentional disobedience, admitted in his affidavit that he ceased further developments only after those activities took place, attempting to justify his actions on account of prior physical possession. The 1st Defendant disclaimed liability on the basis that he had already handed over physical possession to the 2nd Defendant in 2023. While the evidence clearly establishes that active development took place after the order of 11/02/2026, the 2nd Defendant's prompt cessation of works upon service of the contempt application demonstrates a belated attempt to comply with the status quo, mitigating the necessity of an immediate committal to civil jail, provided strict compliance and restoration are enforced under penalty of fine or imprisonment. 37.Having critically evaluated the facts, applicable statutory provisions, and non-cited judicial precedents, this Court makes the final determination that the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 24/11/2025 is fully merited and must be allowed to preserve the subject matter of the suit. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 4/03/2026 is partially successful to the extent that the 2 nd Defendant engaged ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 in unauthorized construction in violation of 22 | P a g e

page 22 of 25

extended Court orders, though a conditional purge period and structural restoration are appropriate in the first instance before ordering committal to civil jail. I therefore make the following orders in relation to both applications: i) The Plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 24/11/2025 is hereby allowed, and a temporary injunction is issued restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants, whether by themselves, their agents, servants, employees, or anyone acting on their behalf, from entering, trespassing upon, occupying, conducting any construction works, alienating, disposing of, or in any other manner interfering with the Plaintiff's access to, quiet possession, occupation, user, and enjoyment of land parcels L.R. No. 11261/44 and L.R. No. 11261/45 pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. ii) The 2nd Defendant, Hezekiah Kariuki Mwangi, is hereby found to have acted in breach of this Court's interim order issued on 11/02/2026 by permitting ongoing construction works on the suit properties after the issuance of the Court order. iii) The 2nd Defendant is ordered to immediately halt all activities, remove all workers, and restore the suit properties L.R. No. 11261/44 and L.R. No. 11261/45 to the exact physical state they were in ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 23 | P a g e

page 23 of 25

prior to 24/02/2026 within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling. iv) In default of compliance with Order Number (iii) above within the stipulated fourteen (14) days, the 2nd Defendant shall be committed to civil jail for a period of thirty (30) days and shall pay a Court penalty fine of Kenya Shillings One Million (Kshs. 1,000,000/-). v) The contempt application dated 4/03/2026 against the 1st Defendant, Willy Kihara Njoki Kanyotu, is dismissed as no active physical participation in the post-order construction works was proved against him to the required threshold. vi) The costs of the Notice of Motion dated 24/11/2025 and the Notice of Motion dated 4/03/2026 are awarded to the Plaintiff/Applicant, to be paid by the 2nd Defendant. vii) Parties to go for Pre-trial Conference on 7/10/2026 before the Deputy Registrar. Orders Accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2026. ………………… ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 24 | P a g e

page 24 of 25

MOGENI J JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Opundo for the Plaintiff/Applicant 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents – Absent Mr. Melita - Court Assistant …………………… MOGENI J JUDGE ELCLC NO. E255 OF 2025 25 | P a g e

page 25 of 25