Chilango v Mulungu & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case 53 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4526 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Malindi allowed a landowner to evict occupants from Kilifi/Roka/898 with police protection, though it declined to punish anyone for contempt.
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 1st to 4th respondents should be cited for contempt for disobeying the orders of Olola J made on 22 January 2021 in Malindi ELC No. 36 of 2016
- 2.Whether the applicant should be assisted by police security in executing the eviction/removal of illegal structures on land parcel Kilifi/Roka/898 in accordance with the judgment
Key legal issues
#Enforcement of a prior judgment of the ELC through contempt and police-assisted eviction
The court granted the unopposed application in terms of prayers (b), (c) and (d), thereby enabling the applicant to execute the eviction of the respondents and removal of illegal structures on Kilifi/Roka/898 in accordance with the judgment of Olola J of 22 January 2021, with police security
The applicant sought citation of the respondents for contempt of the orders of Olola J in Malindi ELC No. 36 of 2016 and an order directing the OCPD Kilifi Division and/or OCS Ngerenya Police Station to offer security during the eviction. The respondents filed no response. The court treated the application as unopposed and granted it, confining the grant to prayers (b), (c) and (d). No substantive reasoning or analysis is set out in the judgment.
Legal principles established
#- An unopposed application may be granted as prayed where no response is filed
Court orders
#- 1.The unopposed application dated 3rd November 2025 is granted in terms of prayers number (b), (c) and (d) thereof
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court to enforce its own orders (statutory provision not cited in the judgment)
Relief refused
#Prayer (a) - citing the respondents for contempt
The court granted only prayers (b), (c) and (d) of the application; the contempt-citation prayer does not appear among the orders granted, though the judgment gives no reason
Costs
No costs order made in the judgment
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.
No response was filed to the application. As the application is unopposed, I hereby grant it in terms of prayers number (b) (c) and (d) thereof.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI ON THIS 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number, parties' names, or the specific provisions under which the contempt application is brought
Apparent typographical errors in the text (e.g. 'Justice or Olola', 'ofier security', 'contacts the eviction')
The judgment grants prayers (b), (c) and (d) but the extracted text only reproduces two principal orders, and the contempt citation prayer appears to be prayer (a) which is not among those granted, without explanation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chilango v Mulungu & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case 53 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4526 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4526/eng@2026-03-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.