Jules Investment Limited & 2 Others v Pherus Arori Monda & 2 Others
The bottom line
#The Kajiado Environment and Land Court dismissed a contempt application because it cited the wrong law and relied on hearsay evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the contempt application
The application is fatally incompetent for being brought under the wrong provisions of law
The motion cited Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 rule 3 CPR, which make provision for judicial review orders. The correct provision for contempt is Section 5 of the Judicature Act. Citing the wrong provisions rendered the application fatally incompetent.
Scope of leave granted and functus officio
Only the committal prayer fell within the leave granted; prayers for cancellation of titles, production of documents and injunction were struck out
Leave granted on 27th February 2024 was limited to prayer 2 of the chamber summons (leave to apply for committal). The court was functus officio after judgment and could not cancel third parties' titles without hearing them, so prayers 1, 2 and 4 were struck out on the court's own motion.
Evidential sufficiency for contempt
The supporting affidavit relied entirely on hearsay and could not sustain a finding of contempt
The deponent's assertions that the suit land changed hands were based on information from other parties, not personal knowledge. Contempt proceedings being quasi-criminal, the heightened standard of proof applies, and hearsay evidence cannot support a finding of contempt.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC's power to punish for contempt is provided for under Section 5 of the Judicature Act, not the Law Reform Act judicial review provisions
- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt
Court orders
#- 1.The court on its own motion struck out prayers No. 1, 2 and 4 in the motion dated 14th March 2024
- 2.The application dated 14th March 2024 is dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reform Act and Order 53 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (as invoked by applicants); contempt jurisdiction under Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Cap 8
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jules Investment Limited & 2 Others v Pherus Arori Monda & 2 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 674 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5872/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.