Sahare Kisupi Mwichambe & 549 Others v Nexus Holdings Limited & 2 Others
The bottom line
#A Kwale court dismissed both sides' contempt claims in a 550-party land dispute because neither proved their allegations with concrete evidence.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether either of the parties through the two filed applications has proved a case of contempt against the other regarding the status quo orders made on 28th November, 2025
- 2.Whether the parties were entitled to the orders sought
- 3.Who bears the costs of both applications
Key legal issues
#Whether the 1st Defendant proved contempt by the Plaintiffs of the status quo orders
Not proved - allegations of construction, boreholes, new entrants and subdivision lacked concrete evidence
The court reviewed the supporting affidavits and found the alleged acts of development, new settlement and sale unsupported by concrete evidence such as a list of new entrants or proof of boreholes. Given the stringent criminal-standard threshold for contempt, the 1st Defendant's application could not stand.
Whether the Plaintiffs proved contempt by the Defendants and police officers
Not proved - allegations of beacons, surveys and police harassment not substantiated
The Plaintiffs alleged that surveyors erected beacons and boundary markers and that police harassed and arrested residents, but the court found these allegations not cemented by valuable or concrete evidence. Both applications therefore failed the stringent contempt threshold.
The applicable standard of proof in contempt proceedings
Contempt proceedings are criminal in nature and facts must be proved beyond reasonable doubt
Relying on Shimmers Plaza Ltd v National Bank of Kenya, the court held that because contempt may result in deprivation of liberty, the threshold is high and the party alleging contempt must prove all facts beyond reasonable doubt, with the order being clear, unambiguous, subsisting and known to the alleged contemnor.
Costs of the twin applications
Each party to bear its own costs
Although costs ordinarily follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court exercised its discretion in light of the protracted and highly contested dispute to order each party to bear its own costs, in the interest of justice and maintaining peace between the parties.
Legal principles established
#- To succeed in civil contempt the applicant must prove the terms of the order, the respondent's knowledge of those terms, and breach; wilfulness is then inferred unless rebutted
- The threshold for contempt is high because it involves possible deprivation of liberty, and the court must be satisfied beyond any shadow of doubt
- Costs follow the event unless the court for good reason otherwise directs
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th May, 2026 by the 1st Defendant dismissed in its entirety
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 20th May, 2026 by the Plaintiffs dismissed in its entirety
- 3.Mention on 4th November, 2026 for Pre-Trial Conference under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; hearing on 18th January, 2027
- 4.Site visit (locus in quo) under Order 18 Rule 11 scheduled for 16th October, 2026 with security arrangements through the County Commander, Kwale and OCS Shimoni
- 5.Status quo orders of 28th November, 2025 re-affirmed on 24th February, 2026 sustained until the matter is heard and determined
- 6.Each party to bear its own costs in both applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; applications brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 63(c) and (e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 40 Rule 3 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#1st Defendant's prayer to cite and commit the Plaintiffs to civil jail for contempt
Alleged breaches not substantiated by concrete evidence; contempt standard not met
1st Defendant's prayers for coercive, mandatory and restraining orders and police enforcement
Application dismissed in its entirety for failure to prove contempt
Plaintiffs' prayer to cite and punish the Defendants and police officers for contempt and to remove beacons
Allegations of beacons and surveys not cemented by concrete evidence
Plaintiffs' prayers restraining surveys, arrests and police harassment
Application dismissed in its entirety for failure to prove contempt
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs in both applications
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.
THAT the Notice of Motion application dated 7th May, 2026 by the 1st Defendant be and is hereby found to lack merit and hence dismissed in its entirety.
THAT the Notice of Motion application dated 20th May, 2026 by the Plaintiffs be and is hereby found to lack merit and hence dismissed in its entirety.
THAT in order to preserve the suit property, the orders of Status Quo to be maintained issued on 28th November, 2025 and re – affirmed on 24th February, 2026 shall be sustained.
THAT each parties to bear their own costs in both applications.
It is trite that for contempt of court to be sustained, the order must be clear, unambiguous, subsisting, and within the knowledge of the alleged contemnor, who must have deliberately failed to comply with it.
This honourable court is not convinced that either of the parties herein have proved their respective cases for contempt of the court orders issued on 28th November, 2025 as per the applications dated 7th May, 2026 and 20th May 2026.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 2026 refers to contempt of orders issued on 28th November '2026' in the disposition analysis
Sentence on submissions is grammatically incomplete, omitting 'not'
Costs issue heading misnumbered as 'ISSUE No b.]' duplicating the entitlement issue
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sahare Kisupi Mwichambe & 549 Others v Nexus Holdings Limited & 2 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E123 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5976/eng@2026-09-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.