Lunga Lunga Energy Limited v Directors Acme Wanji Investment Limited & 4 others; Lunga Lunga Energy Limited (Plaintiff); Acme Wanji Investments Limited & another (Defendant); Energy & Petroleum Regulatory Authority (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4021 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Machakos Environment and Land Court dismissed both a contempt claim and a review application, warning litigants against re-arguing decisions instead of appealing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the respondents were in contempt of the injunctive orders of 11/07/2024 and 25/07/2024
No contempt established. The orders were overtaken by events (the property had been auctioned and transferred), the 3rd-5th respondents were never served, and no case was made against the juristic person without lifting the corporate veil.
The court applied the quasi-criminal standard of proof from Mutitika v Baharini Farm and Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed, requiring deliberate, wilful disobedience. Awareness of the order could be imputed to the 1st and 2nd respondents through counsel, but the orders had been overtaken by events: the auction and sale preceded them, the suit property belonged to Fanaka (a non-party), and the equipment was beyond the respondents' control. Personal service on directors was never effected.
Whether the plaintiff met the threshold for review of the ruling of 18/09/2024
No. The alleged error apparent on the face of the record fell far short of the Order 45 threshold; the complaints were matters for appeal and the motion was vexatious re-litigation.
Under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1, an applicant must show discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay. The plaintiff merely disputed the court's earlier factual findings on rent payment, which is appellate territory, and the Parliamentary Service Commission v Wambora principles confirm review is not a second bite at the cherry.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt.
- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and must be exercised with utmost care and only as a last resort.
- Review is an equitable remedy, not an appeal; an applicant must show error in the exercise of discretion.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 16/09/2024 is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.
- 2.The notice of motion dated 7/02/2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the defendants.
- 3.Unless with leave of the court, there shall be no further filing of applications in this matter.
- 4.Parties to fully comply with Order 11 within 21 days.
- 5.A mention date shall be given for pretrial directions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act (contempt jurisdiction); Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lunga Lunga Energy Limited v Directors Acme Wanji Investment Limited & 4 others; Lunga Lunga Energy Limited (Plaintiff); Acme Wanji Investments Limited & another (Defendant); Energy & Petroleum Regulatory Authority (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E044 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4021 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Machakos ELC suit; related: Mavoko Chief Magistrates Court MCCCMISC No. E037 of 2024 - Irene Adhiambo vs. Lunga Lunga Energy Limited). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4021/eng@2025-05-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.