St. Pauls Theological College, Kapsabet & another v John Keen Kiplagat Songok, Noah Kipkoech Lagat, Samson Kiptanui & Shadrack Kimurgor (As the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Clementina Chebet Songok - Deceased) & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7471 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan landowner's bid to jail neighbours for ignoring a court order failed because her photo evidence lacked the certificate Kenyan law requires.
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 preliminary objection is sustainable
- 2.Subject to issue (a) above, is there merit in the application?
- 3.For the ends of justice, the orders that the court can issue
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection based on sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act was sustainable
The preliminary objection was upheld; admissibility of photographs/electronic evidence is a pure point of law
The court held that admissibility of photographs or electronic records under sections 106A and 106B is primarily a point of law involving interpretation and application of legal provisions, relevance and authenticity, not a contested factual matter. Drawing on Mukisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja, the objection was sustainable and was upheld.
Whether the respondents were in contempt of the orders of 29th January 2025/27th February 2025
The contempt application failed; the applicant did not prove contempt to the required threshold, and the photographic evidence was inadmissible for want of a certificate
Contempt is quasi-criminal and must be proved; the photographs relied upon (EJC-3(a-d)) were unaccompanied by a certificate as required by section 106B, and the respondents denied they depicted the suit parcel. Allegations did not meet the threshold in the cited authorities on proof of contempt, so the application lacked merit.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be on pure points of law and not on facts to be ascertained at trial
- There is an unqualified obligation to obey court orders unless and until discharged
- Production of electronic or digital evidence must be accompanied by a certificate
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is sustained and is upheld
- 2.The application dated 12th March 2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction over contempt of court orders issued in a pending land suit (orders of 21st May 2024, ruling dated 29th January 2025 delivered 27th February 2025)
Relief refused
#Notice to show cause and committal of the Plaintiffs/Respondents to civil jail for contempt of orders issued 29th January 2025 and read on 27th February 2025
The allegations did not meet the threshold of proof of contempt, particularly regarding admissibility of the photographic evidence under sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act
Order that the Respondents purge the contempt, stop dealing in the suit property and allow the Applicant possession and peaceful occupation
The application was dismissed upon upholding the preliminary objection
Costs
dismissed with costs 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 trite law that a preliminary objection must be on pure points of law and not on any fact that has to be ascertained at the trial of the suit
Admissibility of photograph or electronic evidence or record under section 106A and B (supra) is primarily a point of law in view of the rules governing the same.
there is an unqualified obligation upon every person against or in respect of whom an order was made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until it is discharged.
To that end, the preliminary objection is sustainable and the same be and is hereby upheld.
Accordingly, the application dated 12th March 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The court's reasoning conflates the admissibility of electronic evidence with the substantive proof of contempt, without expressly stating the standard of proof applicable; the judgment also alternates between the respondents' standard of proof assertion being unaddressed and a merits dismissal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "St. Pauls Theological College, Kapsabet & another v John Keen Kiplagat Songok, Noah Kipkoech Lagat, Samson Kiptanui & Shadrack Kimurgor (As the Administrators of the Estate of the Late Clementina Chebet Songok - Deceased) & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7471 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 12th March 2025 (in the main suit; suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7471/eng@2025-10-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.