Bedarin Hotel Ltd v Kimani & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2506 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Thika dismissed both applications against Bedarin Hotel, finding no proof of contempt and awarding costs to the hotel.
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 Notice of Motion dated 2/07/2025 is competent and sustainable
- 2.Whether the interim orders of 7/07/2025 can ground a permanent injunction at interlocutory stage
- 3.Whether the Appeal ought to be struck out for being filed out of time
- 4.Whether the elements of contempt (valid order, service/knowledge, wilful breach) are established beyond reasonable doubt
- 5.Whether the Directors of the Appellant can be held personally liable for contempt of a Court order breached by a Company
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction and competence of the 1st application
The application is fundamentally defective and incompetent for failing to cite the legal provisions conferring jurisdiction; the Preliminary Objection is upheld
The Court, being an Appellate Court over NET proceedings, is confined to the EIA License NEMA/PSI/14144 and the two subject properties. Relief beyond that scope raises a jurisdictional question. Applications must identify the legal basis for orders sought; failure is fatal, not a mere technicality.
Contempt of Court by the Directors
Contempt not established; standard of proof not met
While existence of a valid order and service were not genuinely in dispute, the third element (clear, deliberate, wilful breach) failed. Posters dated 2022 predating the orders have no probative value; OB extracts actually corroborate that no noise was found on police visits; and no expert noise assessment was produced, a fatal lacuna.
Personal liability of Directors
Piercing the corporate veil in contempt is permissible only where the named individual personally participated in or authorised the breach; not established here
No evidence specifically links the named Directors to any personal act of authorising or permitting breach. The Court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the named individual personally and deliberately defied the order before committing them to civil jail.
Abuse of Court process
The Applicants' cumulative conduct discloses a pattern consistent with abuse of process; warned of future consequences
The Court noted presentation of 2022 social media posts as evidence of post-order violations, misrepresentation of orders to Police, erection of a gate on a public road, and repeated police visits yielding no findings of breach. Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act require the Court to ensure its process is not weaponized.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction is everything and without it, a Court is rendered a nullity
- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and governed by the criminal standard of proof
- A Court hearing an interlocutory application cannot grant final relief
- An application must pinpoint the legal authority for its prayers; failure renders it fatally defective
- Mere directorship is insufficient to ground committal for contempt absent personal participation
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 2/07/2025 is dismissed with costs to the Appellant
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 27/10/2025 is dismissed with costs to the Appellant
- 3.The costs of both applications are awarded to the Appellant
- 4.The matter shall be mentioned for directions on taking the Judgment date of the substantive Appeal on 28/05/2026
- 5.Parties directed to file and exchange written submissions to the Appeal within 30 days of the Ruling
- 6.Interim orders of 7/07/2025 remain in existence and are not disturbed pending the substantive hearing of the Appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- National Environment Tribunal
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal from the National Environment Tribunal under Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the Appellant from operating a bar/club or playing loud music
A Court hearing an interlocutory application cannot grant final relief; the prayer is misconceived in law
Striking out of the Appeal for being filed out of time
Respondents to an Appeal cannot, through a Notice of Motion, seek to strike out an Appeal properly before the Court without following prescribed procedure
Committal of Directors to civil jail / fine for contempt
Applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt; evidence relied on (posters from 2022, OB extracts) does not establish wilful breach; no personal involvement of Directors established
Costs
The costs of both applications are awarded to the Appellant
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 Notice of Motion dated 2/07/2025 is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Appellant.
Thus, the Notice of Motion dated 27/10/2025 is accordingly dismissed with costs to the Appellant.
Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders.
The costs of both applications are awarded to the Appellant.
It is settled law that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and are therefore governed by the criminal standard of proof.
In law, evidence that predates the order alleged to have been breached cannot logically constitute proof of breach of that order.
The mere fact that they are Directors of the Appellant Company, standing alone, is insufficient to ground a committal order against them personally.
Issues in the judgment
#Prayer 6 of the second application seeks costs 'be borne by the Applicant' while the judgment records the application as brought by the Respondents against the Appellant; the prayer appears to name the moving party for costs contrary to the norm
The judgment refers to 'interim orders of 29/10/2025' in the Replying Affidavit summary while elsewhere only orders of 7/07/2025 are referenced
The Managing Director is referred to variously as 'Rachael Njohi Ngahu', 'Rachael Njoki Njau' and 'Rachael Njoki Ngahu' within the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bedarin Hotel Ltd v Kimani & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2506 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCEPA NO. E004 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2506/eng@2026-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.