Seroney & 5 others v County Government of Nandi (Land Case E017 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1756 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to jail Nandi County officials for contempt because the injunction order was never properly served and lacked a penal notice.
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 application has attained the criteria for contempt of court, namely whether the terms of the order were clear and unambiguous, whether the respondents had knowledge or proper notice of the order, whether there was a breach of the order, and whether the breach was deliberate
- 2.What orders should issue for the ends of justice
Key legal issues
#Whether the orders of 17th October 2024 were clear and unambiguous
The orders were expressed in plain English language and were clear and unambiguous, satisfying the first element
The court reproduced the orders of 17th October 2024 (a temporary injunction restraining the respondent from encroaching on or evicting the applicants from the suit parcels) and found them plainly worded, in consonance with Article 7(2) of the Constitution and section 23 of the Environment and Land Court Act. This element was therefore met, but it alone was insufficient.
Whether the alleged contemnors had knowledge or proper notice of the order
Knowledge was not established: the order lacked a penal notice and was not personally served on the respondent as prescribed by Order 5 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, service having been effected late on a secretary
Contempt is quasi-criminal; personal service and a penal notice are mandatory. Service was on a secretary, less than a day before the events complained of, and the order carried no penal notice. These defects were fatal/premature for committal, so the second element failed.
Whether the alleged breach was attributable to the respondent rather than the National Government
The alleged acts were attributed to the National Government, which is independent of the county government, and the Fourth Schedule distribution of functions supported the respondent's position
The respondent averred it did not enter the suit parcels and that the site was handed over to a contractor by the National Government for affordable housing. The court found the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution clear on the distribution of functions, so the replying affidavit undermined the claim of deliberate breach by the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for contempt must establish four elements: clear and unambiguous terms of the order binding on the defendant, knowledge or proper notice of the order, breach of the order, and deliberateness of the breach
- Personal service of the court order together with a penal notice is mandatory in contempt/committal proceedings, which are quasi-criminal in nature
- There is a plain and unqualified obligation on every person against whom a court order is made to obey it unless and until it is discharged
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th June 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application to the respondent in the cause
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 (Cap 8 Laws of Kenya) as read with section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015
Relief refused
#Citation of Dr. Francis Sang (County Secretary, Nandi County) and Hon. Hillary Serem (CECM, Lands) for contempt and committal to civil jail for six months
There was no penal notice on the face of the order and no proper personal service on the respondent to convey knowledge; the alleged breach was by the National Government, which is independent of the respondent, so the requisite elements of contempt were not established
Orders to restore the existing road reserve to parcels Kapsabet Municipality/390 and 391, remove the fence on parcels Kapsabet Municipality/403 and 416, and stop ongoing works
These consequential prayers fell with the failed contempt application, contempt not having been established
Costs
The application is 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.
Accordingly, the instant application is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed with costs in the cause.
Therefore, the application has not satisfied all the requisite elements for contempt of court.
Lack of personal service of the court orders and the penal notice which are mandatory renders the application premature or fatal.
That the terms of the order or injunction or undertaking) are clear and unambiguous and are binding on the Defendant.
'.........it is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged.........'
Issues in the judgment
#The supporting documents' annexures are inconsistently described (marked 'SK 2a and 2b' in the further affidavit but 'SKS-2' and 'SKS 3a'/'SKS 5a-5b' elsewhere in the judgment)
The Environment and Land Court Act is inconsistently cited in the judgment as both 'Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011)' and 'Environment and Land Court Act 2015'
The orders of 17th October 2024 are reproduced with a typographical error ('certificate to leases' where 'certificates of leases' appears intended)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Seroney & 5 others v County Government of Nandi (Land Case E017 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1756 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (ruling on Notice of Motion dated 5th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1756/eng@2026-03-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.