Umagara Wiyonere Company Limited v Samora & another (Environment and Land Case E142 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6161 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court refused both applications, finding the injunction request a repeat of earlier orders and contempt unproven because the county was never personally served.
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 Plaintiff has met the threshold for grant of a temporary injunction
- 2.Whether the Defendants are in contempt of this Court's orders issued on 31st January 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff met the threshold for a temporary injunction over Plot LR 28395
The application was res judicata as similar orders had been sought and allowed in the application dated 17th April 2023 and the Ruling of 31st October 2023 (Mbugua J)
The court noted from its record that the Plaintiff had sought similar interlocutory orders in 2023, which were allowed by a ruling maintaining status quo over part of the parcel. Invoking section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held the fresh application for the same orders was res judicata and declined to grant them.
Whether the Defendants were in contempt of the order issued on 31st January 2025
Contempt was not established; the Plaintiff failed to prove service of the order on the Defendants or on any official of the 2nd Defendant, and the evidence did not show breach
Applying the four elements of civil contempt, the court found the Plaintiff did not indicate who was served with the order at the 2nd Defendant's office, the notice served by the County did not identify the suit land, and photographs showed the land undeveloped. A County Government cannot be committed unless a proper official is personally served with the order.
Legal principles established
#- A County Government cannot be committed for contempt unless a proper official has been personally served with the court order
- Civil contempt requires proof, to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities, of clear and unambiguous terms of the order, knowledge or proper notice, breach, and deliberateness (adopting North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi)
- A fresh application for the same interlocutory orders previously granted in the same suit is barred by section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (res judicata)
Court orders
#- 1.The two Notice of Motion applications dated 19th January 2025 and 7th March 2025 are disallowed/unmerited
- 2.Costs will be in the cause
- 3.Parties directed to adhere to the Orders issued on 31st October 2023 on maintenance of status quo in LR No. 28395 pending determination of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (the suit plot LR No. 28395); no specific constitutional/statutory provision invoked in the judgment as provided
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with Plot LR 28395
The application was res judicata, similar orders having been sought and allowed in the application dated 17th April 2023 and the Ruling of 31st October 2023
Orders of committal against the Defendants for contempt of the order of 31st January 2025
The Plaintiff did not prove the terms of the order, proper service on the Defendants, breach, or deliberateness; the County Government cannot be committed except upon personal service of the order on a proper official
Orders compelling the Defendants to desist from construction/activities on LR 28395 with committal as sanction
Contempt not demonstrated; the photographs showed the suit land not developed as claimed although materials were on site
Costs
Costs will be in the cause
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.
It is against the foregoing that I find the Plaintifi’s two Notice of Motion applications unmerited and will disallow them.
Costs will be in the cause.
I however direct the parties to adhere to the Orders issued on 31st October 2023 on maintenance of status quo in LR No. 28395 pending the determination of this suit.
the application dated the 19th January, 2025 is hence res judicata and will decline to award the said orders as sought
the 2nd Defendant, which is a County Government cannot be said to be in contempt of court orders but a proper oficial therefrom has to be personally served with the said Court Order
Issues in the judgment
#The parties' names are not fully given in the judgment; the Plaintiff is referred to only by role and by its director's name, and the 1st Defendant by office rather than name
Typographical substitution of 'fi' for 'ff' throughout (e.g. 'Plaintifi', 'afidavit'), and the judgment states the 2nd Defendant is opposed 'vide the replying afidavit of Godfrey Akumali' but the submissions passage says 'The 2nd Defendant reiterates his averments' despite the 2nd Defendant being a County Government
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Umagara Wiyonere Company Limited v Samora & another (Environment and Land Case E142 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6161 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6161/eng@2025-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.