Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherApplication dated 27/11/2025 in ELCLPET E013 of 2024 (formerly ELCPET E013 of 2024)· [2026] KEELC 3418 (KLR)

Kilonzo t/a Kokomo Beach Bar and Restaurant & another v County Executive Committee Member for Lands, Physical Planning, Housing and Urbanization & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3418 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 May 2026
MNMwangi Njoroge
3,265 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~13 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court declined to jail anyone for contempt but gave the County Government of Kilifi and the resort 60 days to demolish the illegal beach structure and restore the riparian land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Lion Beach Resort, the applicant and 3rd respondent in the underlying petition ELCLPET E013 of 2024, sought an application dated 27 November 2025 to commit Agnes Nthenya Kilonzo, OCS Edmund Mwalimu and Jane Maiki Kamto to civil jail for up to six months for disobeying the court's judgment and orders of 16 September 2025, alleging obstruction, influence over county authorities, and hiring of goons. The first and second respondents/petitioners (the County ECM for Lands and the County Government of Kilifi) opposed, arguing the application was premature, ambiguous, and abusive, that the earlier demolition orders had been superseded by the petition judgment, and that contempt must be proved to a high standard. The court recalled its 16 September 2025 judgment: it found the petitioners' structure on riparian land illegal and in breach of EMCA and PLUPA, but also found their rights to fair hearing under Article 50(1) and fair administrative action under Article 47 violated because the enforcement notice and demolition order were never served, referring the matter back for lawful process. Holding that no direct demolition order had been disobeyed, the court declined to punish the alleged contemnors. Instead, it clarified the judgment and directed the petitioners and respondents jointly and severally, within 60 days, to remove or demolish the structure and restore the riparian zone to its natural state. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The application was thus neither wholly allowed nor dismissed; the court used its remedial powers under Article 23 to give the litigation finality.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether contempt was established against the alleged contemnors

Holding

The court declined to punish the alleged contemnors, holding that no direct order compelling demolition had been disobeyed; it instead clarified the judgment and set a compliance timeframe.

Reasoning

The court reviewed the 16 September 2025 judgment, which found the enforcement and demolition procedures unconstitutional for lack of a hearing, and the petitioners' building condemned under EMCA and PLUPA. It held that no order compelled instant demolition, so punishment for contempt was inappropriate; the correct course was to clarify the judgment and give a binding timeframe so the parties could no longer claim no demolition order existed.

p. 6
02

The effect of the two prior orders in this court's litigation with the parties

Holding

The earlier demolition order was never set aside nor appealed; the judgment merely required a hearing before enforcement. The cumulative effect is that the County Government must now remove the structure and restore the riparian land.

Reasoning

The County Government had earlier found the structure illegal and partially demolished it; the judgment of 16 September 2025 confirmed illegality but required compliance with fair-hearing procedures. Since sufficient time for that process had expired, the court directed joint removal of the structure and restoration of the riparian zone within 60 days.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • A court hearing an environmental petition under the Constitution may issue a wide range of reliefs under Article 23, whose list is not exhaustive
  • Every wrong has a remedy in environmental law

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The petitioners and the respondents shall jointly and severally, within 60 days from the date of the order, remove or demolish the petitioners' structure and restore the riparian zone it occupies to its natural state before the development commenced
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs of the present application
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the ELC to punish contempt and enforce its orders; Article 23(3) of the Constitution (reliefs under environmental petitions)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kilonzo t/a Kokomo Beach Bar and Restaurant & another v County Executive Committee Member for Lands, Physical Planning, Housing and Urbanization & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E013 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3418 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 27/11/2025 in ELCLPET E013 of 2024 (formerly ELCPET E013 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3418/eng@2026-05-19

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.