Registrar Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4371 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kisumu court dismissed a request to jail a stadium manager over unpaid revenues, ruling that contempt must be proven to a very high standard.
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 Respondent should be ordered to refund and pay into Court all monies received from Event Organizers and users of Jomo Kenyatta International Stadium – Mamboleo
- 2.Whether the Respondent is in contempt of the court ruling dated 30th October, 2025 and should be committed to civil jail for 6 months
- 3.Who bears the costs of the Application
Key legal issues
#Whether the refund prayer was established
Refused; the applicant did not substantiate the monies allegedly collected or any obligation to refund
The court noted that the Memorandum of Understanding had been the subject of previous rulings, including that of 30th October 2025. The particulars of the Event Organizers and users who used the stadium were not provided or substantiated, and no obligation on the plaintiff to hand over or refund money collected was demonstrated. Prayer 1 therefore failed.
Whether the Respondent was in contempt of the ruling of 30th October, 2025
No; contempt was not proved to the required heightened standard
The court applied the standard in Mutitika v Baharini Farm Limited and the four elements of contempt set out in Johari School Limited v Rosemary Wamburu. The burden lay on the applicant to demonstrate the elements of contempt to the required strictness of proof, which the court found was not achieved on the material before it.
Legal principles established
#- Contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character which must be proved to a standard higher than proof on a balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond a reasonable doubt
- The elements of contempt of court are a valid, clear and unambiguous order binding on the respondent; knowledge or proper notice of its terms; breach of the terms; and that the breach was deliberate or willful
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 2nd February, 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs of the Application
- 3.The parties are urged to expedite the hearing and disposal of the main suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act (Cap 8), sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Refund and payment into Court of all monies received from Event Organizers and users of the stadium
Particulars of the event organizers and users were not provided or substantiated, and no obligation on the plaintiff to hand over or refund monies collected was demonstrated
Committal of the Respondent to civil jail for 6 months for contempt of the ruling dated 30th October, 2025
Contempt must be proved to a standard higher than a balance of probabilities, and the applicant failed to discharge that burden
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the Application.
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 upshot is that the application is dismissed. Each party shall bear its own costs of the Application. The parties are urged to expedite the hearing and disposal of the main suit.
In the present case, I find that the applicant has not proved contempt of court to the required standard.
The particulars of the Event Organizers and Users who used the stadium have not been provided or substantiated.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the main suit case number, and the court in which the suit is filed is not expressly named; the coram only identifies 'JUDGE' at Kisumu
Typographical errors in the judgment text (e.g. 'ofience' for 'offence', 'Afices' for 'Offices')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registrar Trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4371 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2026 (main suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4371/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.