Wanyoike v Gacheru & another (Environment and Land Case 1392 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 1641 (KLR)

the 1st Defendant has admitted to disobeying this Court’s orders and ought to be punished for being in contempt. Response 3. The application is opposed by the 1st Defendant who filed a replying afidavit. She avers that she is the allotee of Plot No. F95 where she has lived over the years. Further, that this Court’s orders of 29th September 2025 restrained interference with Plot No. X33, which is distinct from her plot and which she has never interfered with. She contends that the Court is yet to determine whether Plot No. F95 Huruma Infils-Kiamaiko is one and the same thing with Plot No. X33. 4. The 2nd Defendant did not file a response and parties did not file written submissions. Analysis and Determination 5. Upon consideration of the instant Notice of Motion application including the respective afidavits, the only issue for determination is whether the 1st Defendant is in contempt of this Court’s orders of 29th May 2015 and if she should be committed to civil jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months. 6. The Plaintifi claims that the 1st Defendant has acted in contempt of this Court’s orders issued on the 29th May, 2015. The 1st Defendant insists that she has never interfered with the Plaintifi’s Plot No. X33 and avers that she is on her Plot No. F95 Huruma Infils-Kiamaiko which is distinct from the Plaintifi’s plot. 7. Vide its Orders of 29th May 2015, this Court (L. Gacheru J) noted that the plot in dispute appears to have two difierent plot numbers, with the Plaintifi stating that it is Plot No. X33 Huruma InfillsMathare Phase 1, while the 1st Defendant claims Plot No. F95, Huruma Infils-Kiamaiko. She proceeded to hold as follows: “ Status quo herein should be preserved so that the Plaintifi herein should not interfere with the Defendant’s possession of Plot No. X33, Huruma Infills-Mathare Phase 1, pending the hearing and determination of the suit.” 8. The Court of Appeal stated as follows in Mukuha v Gashwe & 14 others [2023] KECA 1482 (KLR): “ Often times, this Court has emphasized the need to make clear the actual factual position in relation to the subject matter whose status quo is to be maintained. The order should leave no room for more than one clear interpretation..” 9. While in the case of Dean v Dean [1987] 1 FLR 517 cited in Titus Musyoki Nzioka v John Kimathi Maingi & Another (2013) eKLR, the Court stated as follows: “ An application for contempt of Court or its antecedent orders has to establish clearly and precisely exactly of what the Respondent was in contempt of..” 10. On perusal of the Orders granted, I note the Judge directed that there should be no interference with the suit plot No. X33 Residential Plot - Huruma Estate (Kia Maiko) – Infill plots. However, the 1st Defendant insists her plot is number F95. The said Court order did not confirm if X33 and F95 were one and the same. To my mind, I find that since the Status Quo Order did not qualify the actual factual position of the disputed plots and how the same should be maintained, it left room for difierent interpretations. In my viewthe Plaintifi has failed to establish clearly and precisely exactly of what the Defendant is in contempt of. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1641/eng@2026-03-23 2

page 2 of 3

11. In the foregoing, while associating myself with the decisions cited, I find that this is not a clear-cut case where the 1st Defendant can be cited for contempt as she has ownership documents over her land, and I will decline to do so. 12. In the circumstances, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will disallow it. 13. Each party to bear their own costs. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE In the presence of: Matwere for Plaintifi Onyango for Ms Nyang for Defendant Court Assistant: Joan https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1641/eng@2026-03-23 3

page 3 of 3