Kamichar & 6 others v Del Monte Kenya Ltd & 10 others
The bottom line
#Del Monte's bid to jail seven Kenyan farmers for defying a land injunction failed, but the court ordered police to enforce the injunction and shut down illegal quarries.
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 Applicant's application dated 3-7-2026 is merited
- 2.Whether the problem is the enforcement of the order dated 30-6-2025 or the need for a restatement of the said order
- 3.Whether it is the Plaintiffs or their proxies who are quarrying on the suit land
- 4.Whether the Plaintiffs' application dated 26-6-2025 was brushed off by the Court
- 5.Whether it is proper for the Defendant to be surveying the disputed land without involving the Plaintiffs
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiffs should be cited for contempt of the injunction orders of 30-6-2025
No; the motion is merited only insofar as it seeks enforcement of the orders, not committal of the eight plaintiffs
The only evidence linking the plaintiffs to quarrying is a single photograph, whose date and context the 1st plaintiff disputed. The court could not establish where the quarrying occurs or whether the plaintiffs or third parties are responsible. Given the quasi-criminal nature of contempt, cogent evidence identifying the plaintiffs and nobody else was required, and it was absent.
Whether the order of 30-6-2025 needed restatement or enforcement
Enforcement, not restatement; the order is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal
The order allowed prayers 4, 5, 7 and 9, including an injunction against the plaintiffs and their agents and a direction to the OCS Ngati Police Station to enforce it. Once enforced in full, it renders prayers 4, 5 and 6 of the motion superfluous. The affidavits did not show whether the OCS was unwilling or unable to enforce.
Whether the plaintiffs' application dated 26-6-2025 was brushed off by the Court
It was not brushed off; it died a natural death when the order it sought to enforce was set aside on 30-6-2025
The application came up for mention on 27-6-2025 and was directed to mention on 30-6-2025, the ruling date. The order it sought to enforce (27-2-2025) was set aside by the ruling, so the application could not survive. The plaintiffs should have awaited the ruling rather than filing on its eve.
Whether the Defendant could survey the disputed land without involving the plaintiffs
No; any boundary determination should be a court-guided exercise by the District Surveyor and District Land Registrar in the presence of both parties
The Defendant admitted its internal surveyor placed boundary markings on 17-6-2026. The court found it was not contemplated that the Defendant would survey disputed land in the plaintiffs' absence; any boundary determination must be court-guided and conducted by state survey officials with both parties present.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities though lower than beyond reasonable doubt, requiring cogent evidence
- A clear and unambiguous court order requires enforcement, not restatement
- An interlocutory injunction is not envisaged to last more than twelve months under Order 40 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Court orders
#- 1.The orders dated 30-6-2025 to be enforced by the OCS Ngati Police Station
- 2.All illegal quarries on the suit land to close down and all trespassers thereon to be arrested and brought before this Court or to be charged in other Courts, as is appropriate
- 3.Prayers 2 and 3 not allowed for reasons already given
- 4.Mention on 4-11-2026 to monitor compliance with orders numbers (a) and (b) above
- 5.This case to be heard and concluded within (6) months
- 6.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 5(1) Judicature Act; Section 13(5) Environment and Land Court Act; Order 51 rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Citation of the eight plaintiffs for contempt and their committal to jail for up to six months and/or a fine (prayers 2 and 3)
No cogent evidence connecting the plaintiffs to the illegal quarrying; contempt carries a heavier-than-civil burden and the identity of the miners is unclear
Costs
Costs in the cause
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 orders dated 30-6-2025 to be enforced by the OCS Ngati Police Station.
All illegal quarries on the suit land to close down and all trespassers thereon to be arrested and brought before this Court or to be charged in other Courts, as is appropriate.
Prayers 2 and 3 not allowed for reasons already given.
The Defendant bears a burden of proof that is heavier than the burden in ordinary civil cases whose standard is on a margin of probabilities.
The order dated 30-6-2025 is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal.
The Plaintiffs' application died a natural death the moment the order it was anchored on was set aside.
Costs in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#Contemnor list in the motion names 'Brenda Wanjiru Karee' who does not appear in the cause title as a party
5th plaintiff named 'Margaret Wanjira Wanjiru' in cause title but 'Margaret Wanjiru' in the motion
Grounds attribute both affidavits to the Managing Director and Security Manager but give the Managing Director's affidavit date as 23-6-2026 while the Security Manager's is 24-7-2026, yet the motion is dated 3-7-2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamichar & 6 others v Del Monte Kenya Ltd & 10 others", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case E022 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5678/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.