Murunga & another v Shikhutuli & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 1 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3229 (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 there is justification for the court to allow joinder of Emmanuel Malova Matayo and Butali Sugar Mills Limited as parties to this suit
- 2.Whether the applicant has proved contempt against the defendant
- 3.Whether the applicant deserves the orders sought
Key legal issues
#Joinder of intended parties
Joinder refused as no cause of action against the intended parties was demonstrated
The plaintiff did not show what claim he would bring against Butali Sugar Mills or Emmanuel Malova Matayo. He did not claim to have planted the cane or show where it was planted, so their presence was not necessary for effectual adjudication under Order 1 Rule 10(2).
Contempt of consent orders
Contempt not proved; the consent order barred cultivation but not harvesting of cane already growing
The court found the parties had agreed not to cultivate the land, but the order did not bar harvesting what was already growing. Applying the quasi-criminal standard of proof, the plaintiff failed to establish wilful disobedience of clear and unambiguous orders.
Legal principles established
#- To prove contempt, the applicant must show unambiguous orders, awareness, and wilful disobedience
- The standard of proof in contempt is higher than balance of probabilities but lower than beyond reasonable doubt
- A party may be joined where their presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissal of the Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 with costs
- 2.Discharge of the ex parte orders of 20th February 2026 directing that sugarcane proceeds under permit No. 437726 be deposited in court
- 3.Release of cane proceeds already deposited in court under permit No. 437726 to Emmanuel Malova Matayo
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act (contempt jurisdiction of Superior Courts)
Relief refused
#Joinder of Emmanuel Malova Matayo and Butali Sugar Mills Limited
No cause of action shown against the intended parties
Citation and punishment of the defendant for contempt
Standard for contempt not met; the order did not bar harvesting already-growing cane
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the defendant
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.
In the premises, I find no merit in the application dated 18th February 2026 which I hereby dismiss with costs.
the court hereby orders that the cane proceeds (if) already deposited in court, in respect of permit No. 437726 from parcel No. N. KABRAS/MATSAKHA/848, pursuant to the orders of 20th February 2026, be forthwith released to the owner thereof, one EMMANUEL MALOVA MATAYO.
the ex parte orders made on 20th February 2026, to the efiect that sugarcane proceeds regarding the harvest from parcel No. N. KABRAS/MATSAKHA/848 delivered under permit No. 437726 be deposited in court, are hereby discharged.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the consent orders, referring to both 20th February 2025 and 20th February 2026
The application is described as seeking orders against 'the 1st defendant' though only one defendant appears on record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Murunga & another v Shikhutuli & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 1 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3229 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3229/eng@2026-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.