Kihara (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Alice Nduta Kihara) & another v Patmos Investment Limited & 14 others (Environment and Land Case E159 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2413 (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 2nd Plaintiff wilfully lied on oath during the proceedings of 23/02/2026 and refused to purge the perjury
- 2.Whether the Court should set in motion his prosecution for perjury
- 3.What conditions, if any, should attach to the Court's exercise of mercy
Key legal issues
#Whether a litigant who lies on oath and declines to purge the perjury should be prosecuted
The Court found the 2nd Plaintiff wilfully lied on oath and initially refused to purge the perjury, but exercised discretion to withhold immediate prosecution, extending conditional mercy
The Court held that the sanctity of the oath underpins adversarial justice and that perjury is not a victimless offence. However, it recognised human fallibility and the 2nd Plaintiff's subsequent contrition expressed through Counsel. Mercy was therefore extended once, on strict conditions requiring correction of the false record at Gatundu, with prosecution to follow automatically on default or any further lie.
Nature and gravity of perjury under Kenyan law
Perjury under section 108 of the Penal Code is punishable by imprisonment of up to seven years; section 109 criminalises wilful false statements on oath
The Court set out the statutory framework, emphasising that these provisions protect the integrity of the justice system rather than oppress litigants. A deliberate departure from truth on oath is a cognisable criminal act that strikes at the foundation of adjudication.
Legal principles established
#- Perjury strikes at the foundation of the judicial system and the administration of justice depends on witnesses telling the truth
- Perjury is not a victimless offence; it deprives parties of justice and corrupts the court record
- Genuine remorse requires correcting the false record at its source, not merely an apology in court
Court orders
#- 1.Finding that the 2nd Plaintiff wilfully lied on oath on 23/02/2026 and that his initial refusal to purge the perjury was a deliberate affront to the administration of justice
- 2.Court declines at this stage to refer the matter for immediate prosecution, as an act of measured judicial grace
- 3.2nd Plaintiff to take all necessary steps within 30 days of the Ruling to correct the false record at the Gatundu Court
- 4.2nd Plaintiff to file an Affidavit within 14 days thereafter confirming the steps taken, exhibiting proof
- 5.Warning that any further lie or misleading of the Court will result in referral for prosecution without further hearing
- 6.Throw away costs of Ksh 50,000 to be paid personally by the 2nd Plaintiff to the Counsels who attended Court on 23/02/2026 before the next hearing
- 7.Matter to revert to normal hearing once all actions are accounted for
- 8.Mention to confirm and take a hearing date on 20/07/2026
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the High Court/Environment and Land Court over the integrity of court proceedings; not expressly stated in the judgment
Relief refused
#Unconditional mercy / no prosecution without conditions
Court imposed conditional obligations and warned of prosecution if conditions are not met
Excuse from paying costs
Costs of the Notice to Show Cause awarded against the 2nd Plaintiff personally as a mark of disapproval
Costs
Costs of and incidental to the Notice to Show Cause proceedings borne by the 2nd Plaintiff personally, being throw away costs of Kshs 50,000 payable to the Counsels who attended Court on 23/02/2026 before the next hearing.
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 sanctity of the oath is not a procedural technicality. It is the cornerstone upon which the entire edifice of adversarial justice is built.
First, this Court finds that the 2nd Plaintifi wilfully lied on oath during the proceedings of 23/02/2026, and that his initial refusal to purge the perjury constituted a deliberate afiront to the administration of justice.
this Court declines at this stage to refer the matter for immediate prosecution. This is not a finding of innocence. It is an act of measured judicial grace, extended once and not to be interpreted as a standing invitation.
The 2nd Plaintifi shall, within thirty (30) days of this Ruling, take all necessary steps to correct the false record at the Gatundu Court.
the costs of and incidental to the Notice to Show Cause proceedings shall be borne by the 2nd Plaintifi personally being throw away costs of Kesh 50,000 to be paid to the Counsels who attended Court on 23/02/2026 as per the Court record before the next hearing, as a mark of the Court's disapproval of his conduct.
The matter shall revert to the normal hearing once all the above actions are taken and accounted for.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment does not state the case number or citation of the main suit
Conflicting dates in the judgment regarding when the hearing and perjury occurred versus when the Notice to Show Cause was directed to be canvassed
Possible clerical error - 'throw away costs of Kesh 50,000' likely intended as Kshs
Counsel for the 13th Defendant is named as 'Mr. Mboya' in the appearance list while Mr. Mboha appears for the Plaintiffs - potential clerical confusion
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kihara (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of Alice Nduta Kihara) & another v Patmos Investment Limited & 14 others (Environment and Land Case E159 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2413 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2413/eng@2026-04-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.