Ndambuki v Muia & another (Environment and Land Case E032 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2065 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 Applicant has proved that the Respondent was in contempt of the court order given on 25th September, 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent was in contempt of the injunction order of 25th September, 2025
Yes. The order was clear, was served by a process server, service was not denied, and the Respondent willingly demolished the building without applying to discharge the order, even if he was executing an earlier decree.
The court found the injunction order was served by process server Justus Mbweli Nzina, whose affidavit was uncontroverted. The Respondent admitted demolishing the structures but claimed he was enforcing a 2018 decree upheld on appeal. The court held that even a party executing a lawful decree must first obey or seek discharge of a subsisting order; self-help is not permitted. Whether plot 648 existed within Block 1/98 was irrelevant to the contempt question.
Whether enforcement of a prior decree in respect of a different parcel is a defence to contempt
No. The Respondent could not decide for himself that the injunction order did not bind him because he was enforcing another decree.
Relying on Rose Detho v Ratilal Automobile Ltd and the authorities cited therein (Worbun Limited v Margaret Bashford and Refrigeration and Kitchen Utensils Ltd v Gulabanchand Potatlal Shah), the court held that a party who knows of an order cannot disobey it on the ground that it is null or irregular; he must come to court for its discharge. Had the Respondent responded to the injunction application the outcome might have differed given the earlier judgment affirmed by the Court of Appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A party who knows of a court order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, must obey it or apply to court for its discharge; he cannot judge for himself whether to disobey it.
- A party obliged by an order cannot ignore it on the belief that it was illegally or irregularly obtained; the proper course is to apply for discharge of the order.
Court orders
#- 1.A finding that the Respondent is guilty of contempt of the court order of 25th September, 2025
- 2.The Respondent to appear before the court on a date to be given after delivery of the ruling for appropriate sentence
- 3.The Applicant to have costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disobedience of its own orders (no specific statutory provision cited)
Relief refused
#Immediate committal of the 1st Defendant to civil jail for six months
The court found contempt but deferred sentencing to a later date rather than committing the Respondent forthwith
Order that OCS Emali police station assist in the arrest of the Respondent
Not expressly granted; arrest/enforcement left to the sentencing stage
Costs
The Applicant shall have costs of this application.
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.
The Respondent decided to ignore the court order of 25th September, 2025 willingly. I therefore find that the Respondent is guilty of contempt of the court order of 25th September, 2025.
The proper procedure which the Respondent would have followed was to apply for discharge of the orders of 25th September, 2025 before he could move to evict the Applicant.
A party who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it
The Respondent shall appear before the court on a date to be given after the delivery of this ruling for appropriate sentence. The Applicant shall have costs of this application. It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#Case number and neutral citation are not stated anywhere in the judgment; the identity of the 2nd Defendant is also not given.
The process server is named inconsistently within the judgment - 'Justus Mweli Nzina' and 'Justus Mbweli Nzina'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndambuki v Muia & another (Environment and Land Case E032 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2065 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2065/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.