Mbugua & 7 others v Agricultural Development Corporation & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 101 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 8071 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court found ADC, NYS and government officials in contempt of court for demolishing and evicting people despite standing status quo orders.
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 was a valid order of the court issued on 20th March 2024, 25th July 2024 and restated on 20th September 2024.
- 2.Whether the Respondents were served with or made aware of the orders.
- 3.Whether the Respondents deliberately and willfully failed to comply with the terms of the order and are guilty of contempt of court orders.
Key legal issues
#Validity of the status quo orders
Valid orders of status quo were issued on 25th July 2024 and rectified on 20th September 2024 to include Plot No. 20591/114 EX ADC Ndabibi
The court traced the sequence: interim orders of 7th March 2024, extended 3rd April and 7th May 2024, culminating in the ruling of 25th July 2024 delivered in the presence of counsel, then rectified under the court's inherent power (citing Nakumatt Holdings) to include the omitted parcel. It concluded a valid order directing maintenance of status quo existed.
Service/knowledge of the orders
All respondents had actual knowledge of the orders; personal service was unnecessary
Relying on Shimmers Plaza and Basil Criticos, the court held that knowledge supersedes personal service. The ruling was delivered in the presence of the 1st and 2nd Defendants' counsel; affidavits of service by process server Henry Omega with WhatsApp extracts and stamped returned copies confirmed service and acknowledgment by the respondents.
Wilful disobedience
The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Respondents were in blatant, deliberate and intentional contempt of the status quo orders
The applicants produced pictorial evidence, sworn affidavits of eyewitness caretakers, a police abstract and valuation reports of the invasions of 17th July 2024, 19th February 2025 and 25th February 2025, involving demolition and eviction. The respondents' blanket denial was unconvincing and unsupported by verifiable evidence, while the 4th and 5th Respondents filed no response at all.
Standard of proof in contempt
The burden of proof in contempt is higher than on a balance of probability, given the potential deprivation of liberty
Following Mutitika v Baharini Farm Limited, the court acknowledged the elevated standard and, being mindful of the penal consequences, nonetheless found the applicants had discharged that burden on the detailed and corroborated evidence before it.
Failure to file submissions
The 1st and 2nd Respondents, having failed to file submissions as directed despite extension of time, were deemed to have not opposed the applications
The court held that filing written submissions is the norm under the new constitutional dispensation and that a party who fails to file submissions as ordered is deemed to have failed to prosecute or defend, demonstrating inertia and lack of interest.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in civil contempt, the applicant must prove the terms of the order, knowledge of those terms by the respondent, and breach; wilfulness and bad faith are then inferred unless rebutted
- Knowledge of a court order supersedes strict proof of personal service in contempt proceedings
- Every person against whom a court order is made is under an unqualified obligation to obey it until discharged, even if they believe it irregular or void
- The power to commit a contemnor to jail must be exercised with utmost care and only as a last resort, upon proof that the conduct was deliberate and wilful
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that the Managing Director and Corporation Secretary of the Agricultural Development Corporation, the Director-General of the National Youth Service and the 5th Respondent Mr Anthony Langat Mosonik are in contempt of the court orders of 20th March 2024, 25th July 2024 and restated 20th September 2024
- 2.The court to proceed to punish the contemnors
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159(2) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Committal to civil jail for six months / fine of Kshs. 10,000,000 as sought at this stage
The court found contempt proved and stated it would proceed to punish, but did not pronounce a specific sentence or fine in this judgment
Costs
No costs order was pronounced in the judgment.
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.
I thus find them in contempt of the court order of 20th March 2024, 25th July 2024 and restated on 20th September 2024 and will accordingly proceed to punish them.
The Managing Director and Corporation Secretary of the Agricultural Development Corporation (ADC), the Director-General of the National Youth Service (NYS) and the 5th Respondent Mr Anthony Langat Mosonik, I find, were in blatant, deliberate and intentional violation of the court's dignity, repute and authority
The act of proceeding with demolition and eviction in the face of such an order is a direct and wilful act of defiance against the court and the rule of law.
it is not open to any person or persons to choose whether or not to comply with or to ignore such orders as directed to him or them by a Court of law.
Being mindful that the burden of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than that in a normal civil matter because such proceedings had the potential of impacting the rights of a party who may end up being committed to civil jail, I thus find the Applicant's applications dated the 28th March 2025 and 10th June 2025 merited.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent date of the alleged first order throughout the judgment - applications refer to '20th March 2025 (sic)' while the issues frame it as '20th March 2024'
Supporting affidavits described as dated 28th March 2024 in one passage though the applications are dated 28th March 2025
No final sentence, fine or costs order pronounced despite the finding of contempt and the applications seeking committal or a fine
Affidavits referenced inconsistently as JKM3/JKM4 and JKK4/JKK5 in the determination paragraph
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mbugua & 7 others v Agricultural Development Corporation & 8 others (Environment and Land Case 101 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 8071 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (twin applications dated 28th March 2025 and 10th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8071/eng@2025-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.