Kamakil v Korir & another (Environment & Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3248 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to jail a landowner for contempt because the orders he allegedly broke were obtained through misleading information.
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 dated 21st June 2024 seeking contempt findings against the 1st Defendant is merited
- 2.Whether the 1st Defendant is in contempt of the orders dated 8th May, 2024
- 3.Whether the court should order the 1st Defendant to purge the contempt
Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Defendant was in contempt of the status quo orders of 8th May 2024
No contempt was established; the orders were procured on misleading information and the 1st Defendant had not done anything new after the orders
The court found the plaintiff misled the court through the Area Assistant Chief, whose report of 14th May 2024 confirmed the semi-permanent structure fell outside the disputed land and that nothing new was done on the suit land after 8th May 2024. The 1st Defendant had removed fences and adhered to directions, so punishing him for remaining in his pre-order position would be unfair.
Legal principles established
#- Courts punish contempt to uphold their dignity, the rule of law and the administration of justice
- It is unfair to punish a party for contempt where he merely remained in the position he occupied before the orders were issued, even where the orders state otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 21st June 2024 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction over the suit land and contempt applications; no specific provision invoked
Relief refused
#Finding that the 1st Defendant is in contempt of the orders dated 8th May 2024
The Assistant Chief misled the court into issuing the orders; the 1st Defendant remained in the position he occupied before the orders were issued
Committing the 1st Defendant to civil jail and/or fine
The application was found unmerited
Order to purge contempt
No contempt was established
Costs
Dismissed with costs (to the 1st Defendant)
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.
The upshot of the foregoing is that the application dated 21st June, 2024, is not merited and is dismissed with costs.
It is so ordered.
disobedience towards courts orders or decisions risks rendering our courts impotent and judicial authority a mere mockery
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction: the court first states the plaintiff misled the court through his agents, then that the Assistant Chief misled the court
Malformed sentence in the court's reasoning
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamakil v Korir & another (Environment & Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3248 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3248/eng@2025-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.