County Government of Kwale v Building Fire Consultants Co. Limited (Environment and Land Case 56 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 5837 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that a county government knowingly disobeyed an injunction and its top officials must personally explain themselves or risk arrest.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there are clear and unambiguous orders capable of being obeyed.
- 2.Whether the contemnors were aware of the court order and whether service was effected on them.
- 3.Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent's County Executive Committee Member for Lands (CEC) are in contempt of the orders the Court made on 3rd February, 2025.
- 4.Who will bear the Costs of Notice of Motion application 6th February, 2025.
Key legal issues
#Whether the orders of 3rd February 2025 were clear and unambiguous and capable of being obeyed
The orders restraining the Plaintiff/Respondent from interfering with the suit properties were clear and unambiguous, and no complaint of ambiguity was raised.
The Court found that the injunctive orders of 3rd February 2025 were plainly worded and had not been discharged, varied or set aside. The Plaintiff/Respondent never claimed the orders were ambiguous or confusing. The first element of the civil contempt test from Samuel M. N. Mweru was therefore satisfied: clear orders binding on the party, within its knowledge, and breached.
Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent had knowledge of the orders and whether personal service was necessary
Service was properly effected and knowledge proved; personal service is not mandatory where knowledge of the order is established.
Relying on Kenya Tea Growers Association v Francis Atwoli, Basil Criticos v Attorney General and Shimmers Plaza v National Bank of Kenya, the Court held that knowledge of an order supersedes personal service. The affidavit of service (JN-002) and accompanying letter established that the Plaintiff/Respondent had full knowledge of the orders, so its agents could not claim unawareness.
Whether the County Attorney and/or CEC for Lands were in contempt
The Plaintiff/Respondent's agent was in contempt of the court orders, warranting the summons and consequential orders sought.
Applying the Mweru and Mutitika v Baharini Farm thresholds, the Court was satisfied the Plaintiff/Respondent knowingly breached the subsisting injunction by continuing construction of a fence and gate on the suit properties. The breach was deliberate; willfulness and bad faith were inferred and unrebutted, satisfying the higher-than-civil standard of proof.
Who bears the costs of the application
Costs of the application were awarded to the Defendant/Applicant, to be borne by the Plaintiff/Respondent personally.
Citing Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the principle that costs follow the event, the Court exercised its discretion in favour of the successful Defendant/Applicant, there being no compelling reason to depart from the general rule.
Legal principles established
#- Knowledge of a court order supersedes personal service for purposes of contempt proceedings.
- Every person against whom a court order is made must obey it unless and until it is discharged, even if believed irregular or void.
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities, though not beyond reasonable doubt.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 6th February, 2025 be and is hereby found to have merit and is allowed in its entirety.
- 2.Summons issued to the Plaintiff/Respondent's County Attorney and the County Executive Committee Member for Lands (CEC) to personally appear before the Court on 17th July, 2025 to explain their disobedience of the orders issued on 3rd February 2025 and purge the contempt.
- 3.In the event of failure to comply with summons, an arrest warrant to issue against the Plaintiff/Respondent's Current County Attorney and/or the County Executive Committee Member for Lands (CEC) in contempt of court.
- 4.Costs of the Application awarded to the Defendant/Applicant to be borne by the Plaintiff/Respondent personally.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Cap. 8; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
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.
That the Notice of Motion application dated 6th February, 2025 be and is hereby found to have merit and is allowed in its entirety.
That in the event of failure to comply with summons, an arrest warrant do and is hereby issued against the Plaintifi/ Respondent’s Current County Attorney and or the Plaintifi/ Respondent’s County Executive Committee Member for Lands (CEC) in contempt of court.
That the costs of the Application awarded to the Defendant/Applicant to be borne by the Plaintifi/ Respondent personally.
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.
where a party clearly acts and shows that he had knowledge of a Court Order; the strict requirement that personal service must be proved is rendered unnecessary
the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is styled a 'Ruling' on a Notice of Motion, and the suit number/cause number of the main suit (in which the 3rd February 2025 orders were issued) is nowhere stated on the face of the ruling.
Costs quoted from the court's own earlier judgment in Sagalla Lodge refers to an application dated 7th December, 2021 and 21st December, 2021, which does not correspond to the present matter, though quoted as precedent.
The judgment records that parties were directed to file written submissions but none could be located on the portal or registry, so the ruling proceeded without them.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kwale v Building Fire Consultants Co. Limited (Environment and Land Case 56 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 5837 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 6th February, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5837/eng@2025-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.