Chepyagan & 13 others v Cabinet Secretary Interior & Government Coordination & 14 others (Environment and Land Petition E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2237 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kitale Environment and Land Court dismissed a contempt claim because the applicants couldn't prove the other side actually knew about, or deliberately disobeyed, the court order.
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 1st-5th respondents disobeyed the court order issued on 9/10/2025 so as to be guilty of contempt
- 2.Whether the applicant satisfied the ingredients for establishing contempt (clear and binding order, knowledge, non-compliance, deliberate conduct)
- 3.Whether the application, brought by the 4th interested party rather than the petitioners who benefited from the order, was properly and competently filed
- 4.Whether the court should order compensation of the NEMA expert team, provide security, and restrain interference with the ESIA exercise
Key legal issues
#Ingredients of contempt of court
The ingredients were restated but not satisfied: no proof of service, knowledge, or deliberate disobedience by the proposed contemnors
The court restated the established elements from the authorities: a clear and unambiguous order, knowledge by the respondent, failure to comply, and deliberate conduct. It found no evidence that the proposed contemnors were served with the order or pleadings or that they were aware of its contents, so the elements were not proved to the required intermediate standard.
Capacity of an interested party to bring contempt proceedings
The 4th interested party could not prosecute contempt on behalf of the petitioners who were the beneficiaries of the order
The order of 9/10/2025 was granted at the petitioners' request, yet the contempt application was filed by the 4th interested party who was not a petitioner. The court held that an interested party must accept that the issues in a suit belong to the principal parties, and the petitioners' advocate was silent on how the petitioners had relinquished their role to the interested party. The application was therefore incompetently filed.
Scope of the order of 9/10/2025
The order only allowed provision of adequate security for the scheduled public participation exercise and did not regulate the manner of conducting it
The court clarified that its order extended only to security for the public participation exercise concerning the fig tree at Toroso primary school. Until the petition is heard and determined, the court would not issue any other orders on how the exercise is conducted, so alleged interference with the ESIA process was outside the scope of the order relied upon.
Evidentiary support for allegations of criminality in contempt proceedings
Spurious allegations bordering on criminality unsupported by any official complaint reports undermine the application
The deponents alleged incitement and disruption of the public participation exercise, but no complaint letter, petition, or OB report was attached to show that the matters had been reported to the National Police Service or the Law Society of Kenya for investigation. In the absence of such corroboration, the allegations could not sustain a contempt finding.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in a contempt application, the applicant must prove that the terms of the order were clear, unambiguous and binding, that the respondent knew the terms, failed to comply, and acted deliberately
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is intermediate, higher than the civil balance of probabilities, because contempt is quasi-criminal in nature
- Court orders are binding and must be obeyed even by parties who believe them to be irregular or void
- An interested party cannot assume the role of the principal parties; the issues for determination in a suit remain those of the principal parties
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 21/11/2025 is dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Finding the 1st-5th respondents guilty of contempt of the orders issued on 9/10/2025
None of the proposed contemnors was a party to the petition or the order, no evidence of service or knowledge of the order, and the beneficiaries of the order (the petitioners) did not file the application
Compensation of the NEMA expert and his team of nine Associates with Kshs. 5,000,000/= or any other amount
Contempt was not established
Provision of adequate, effective and continuous security for the NEMA expert team to resume and complete the ESIA exercise
Contempt was not established; the court had only allowed security for the public participation exercise, not other orders
Injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with the remaining part of the ESIA exercise
Application dismissed as incompetent and lacking merit
Costs
Dismissed with no order as to costs
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.
Looking at the material before the court, I find that the application is not only incompetently filed, but also lacking merit. It is dismissed with no order as to costs.
There is no evidence that the alleged contemnors were, in the 1st instance, served with the court order or the pleadings leading to the court order.
The beneficiaries of the order, who are the petitioners, are not the ones who have filed the application for contempt of court.
Court orders are not made in vain and must at all times be respected. They cannot be trashed with impunity.
Since contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, due to the severity of the consequences, the standards of proof are higher than in a balance of probabilities in civil cases
an interested party must come to terms with the reality that in any suit or petition, issues for determination remain those of the principal parties.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the petition or application case number, and the copy supplied begins mid-document at paragraph 1 without a formal caption identifying the parties and suit
The judgment refers to the proposed contemnors as both 'respondents' and 'appellants' in the narrative describing Kioko -vs- Muli, which is confusing in a first-instance context
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepyagan & 13 others v Cabinet Secretary Interior & Government Coordination & 14 others (Environment and Land Petition E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2237 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2237/eng@2026-04-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.