Philip & 22 others v National Housing Corporation & another (Environment and Land Petition E006 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5451 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Mombasa Environment and Land Court dismissed a contempt application against National Housing Corporation because the petitioners couldn't prove any court order was actually breached.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether disobedience of the status quo order of 19th October 2023 was proved
Not proved; the petitioners did not identify which petitioner's house was demolished and the 1st respondent's unchallenged evidence showed the vacated houses had been handed to the contractor before the order
The order did not specify what status quo was to be maintained. None of the petitioners deposed to a specific demolished house, and their photographs were not tied to specific tenants or house numbers, unlike the respondent's. The respondent's deposition that 65 tenants had vacated and the site was handed over on 29th September 2023 remained unrebutted, leaving no evidence of breach after the order.
Whether the managing director could be cited for contempt
No; the order was not personally served on him, which was incumbent on the petitioners
Service of the order with penal notice was effected on 'Fausta Mghendi' at the respondent's offices, who declined to acknowledge receipt. For a contempt citation against a named individual, personal service on that individual is required; service on another officer of the corporation does not suffice against the managing director personally.
Effect of the lapse of the status quo order
The status quo order was no longer in force, having been superseded by the dismissal of the underlying applications on 13th December 2023
The applications dated 18th October 2023 and 31st August 2023, on which the status quo order was predicated, were heard inter partes and dismissed by a ruling delivered on 13th December 2023. With no subsisting order, there could be no continuing contempt, reinforcing dismissal of the application.
Costs
Costs follow the event; petitioners to pay the 1st respondent's costs
Under section 21 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs follow the event unless the court directs otherwise for good reason. No good cause was shown to depart from that principle given the petitioners' unsuccessful contempt application.
Legal principles established
#- In contempt proceedings, the order alleged to have been breached must be personally served on the named contemnor for committal to succeed
- Where a status quo order is not phrased with specifics, the party alleging breach must establish with specificity what the status quo was and how it was breached
Court orders
#- 1.That the notice of motion dated 6th November 2023 is without merit
- 2.That the application is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rule 3(1) to (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (contempt application arising from a constitutional petition before the ELC)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Philip & 22 others v National Housing Corporation & another (Environment and Land Petition E006 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5451 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Mombasa (constitutional petition) — notice of motion dated 6th November 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5451/eng@2025-07-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.