Gakuru & 2 others (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of JWA Thika Sub-County) v County Government of Kiambu & another; National Land Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7571 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court has summoned top national and county land officials to personally explain why they should not be punished for ignoring a court order halting construction in Thika.
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 Respondents are in contempt of Court orders issued on 20/05/2025
- 2.Whether the Applicant is entitled to the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents are in contempt of the conservatory order issued on 20/05/2025
The Court found the Respondents aware of the unappealed, unreviewed Ruling and referred the PS and CECM to show cause why they should not be found guilty of contempt
The Court applied the Mativo J test (clear order, knowledge, breach) and the authorities holding that knowledge supersedes personal service. The Respondents were represented by counsel throughout, filed responses, and neither appealed nor sought review of the 20/05/2025 Ruling. The 1st Respondent's argument that absence of personal service on the CECM defeated the application was rejected on the authority of Basil Criticos and Shimmers Plaza. The 2nd Respondent filed no affidavit to contest the averments.
Whether personal service of the order was a prerequisite to contempt proceedings against the CECM
Personal service was not necessary where knowledge of the order is demonstrated
Relying on Basil Criticos v Attorney General, the Court held that where a party clearly acts with knowledge of a court order, the strict requirement of personal service is rendered unnecessary. Counsel for the Respondents had been present when the orders were made and the orders were also served, so the 1st Respondent's service-based objection failed.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in civil contempt, an applicant must prove the terms of the order, knowledge of those terms by the respondent, and failure to comply; willfulness and bad faith are then inferred unless rebutted on a balance of probabilities
- The standard of proof in contempt is higher than a balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt, because contempt is an offence of criminal character
- Knowledge of a court order supersedes the strict requirement of personal service
- It is sufficient to prove that the advocate of the alleged contemnor was present in court when the orders were made
Court orders
#- 1.The Principal Secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) Land, Housing, Physical Planning & Urban Development in Kiambu County are summoned to personally appear before the Court to show cause why they should not be cited and found guilty of contempt of Court for disobeying the Order issued on 20/05/2025, appearance through Microsoft Teams Virtual Court
- 2.Costs awarded to the Applicant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt jurisdiction under Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules in respect of conservatory orders issued by the ELC in an ongoing Petition
Relief refused
#Immediate committal to civil jail for six months or imposition of a fine of Kshs. 500,000 on each Respondent
The Court did not reach a finding of guilt at this stage; instead it issued a notice to show cause requiring the officials to appear personally and answer the contempt allegations
Costs
Costs are awarded to the Applicant.
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.
There is no Appeal against the Ruling delivered by this Court nor application for review meaning that the Respondents are aware of what is expected of them and have chosen to brazenly test whether the law truly has “teeth”.
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.
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.
The Principal Secretary (PS) in the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development as well as the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) Land, Housing, Physical Planning & Urban Development in Kiambu County are hereby summoned to personally appear before this Court to show cause why they should not be cited and found guilty of Contempt of Court for disobeying and defying the Order issued by this Honourable Court on 20/05/2025 through Microsoft Teams Virtual Court.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment alternates between 'Gatharia Mitika & Others v Bahrain Farm Ltd' and 'Gatharia K. Mutikika v Baharini Farm Ltd', apparently the same authority spelled inconsistently
Application described as seeking findings against the 1st and 2nd Respondents, yet the relief seeks committal of the PS and CECM, and the ruling text refers to both 'Respondents' and 'Petitioners' in the appearances without the parties being fully defined in the extract
Contempt application decided without the benefit of submissions, as none had been filed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gakuru & 2 others (Suing on their behalf and on behalf of JWA Thika Sub-County) v County Government of Kiambu & another; National Land Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E012 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7571 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 12/06/2025 (in a Petition at ELC Thika). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7571/eng@2025-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.