Kyule v Katu & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E106 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3487 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st defendant was in contempt of the orders of 19 December 2024 and 4 November 2025
No contempt established; the application was dismissed
The court applied the near-criminal standard of proof from Mutitika v Baharini Farm. The 19 December 2024 orders failed for want of proof of personal service. As to the 4 November 2025 orders, the administrative letters predated the ruling and did not identify the suit land, and the photographs were inadmissible for want of a certificate under Sections 106A-106B of the Evidence Act. Evidence therefore fell below the required threshold.
Admissibility of photographic (electronic) evidence in contempt proceedings
Photographs inadmissible for non-compliance with Sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act
Following County Assembly of Kisumu, the provisions are mandatory, aimed at ensuring authenticity and integrity of electronic records, though the certificate format is flexible and affidavit averments may meet the threshold. Here the further affidavit omitted the date the photographs were taken and gave deficient particulars of handling, so no proper certificate existed and the photographs were expunged of probative value.
Service as a precondition to contempt liability
Contempt cannot be founded on orders not proved served; service of the 4 November 2025 orders was established as counsel was present, but service of the 19 December 2024 orders was not proved
The court treated service as the first step in contempt proceedings. Where the ruling was rendered in the presence of the defendant's counsel, service was satisfied; but for the earlier orders there was no proof of service, and a party cannot be punished for disobeying orders of which they were not privy.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal, must be exercised with utmost care and only as a last resort, and conduct must be deliberate/willful
- The standard of proof in contempt is higher than balance of probabilities, approaching but not beyond reasonable doubt
- A contemnor cannot be held liable for orders not proved to have been served on them
- Without a proper certificate of electronic evidence under Sections 106A and 106B of the Evidence Act, photographs lack probative value and are inadmissible, though the certificate format is not rigid and affidavit averments may suffice
- Ingredients of contempt: an existing order capable of being disobeyed, awareness of the order, and breach of the order
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 21 November 2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause
- 2.A mention date shall be given for pretrial directions
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Article 40 of the Constitution; Section 5 of the Judicature Act (Cap 8)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kyule v Katu & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E106 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3487 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 21 November 2025 (suit over land parcels Ndithini Mananja Block 1/4068-4073, Machakos ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3487/eng@2026-06-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.