Principles Styles Limited v Leonard Roipa Pasha, Land Registrar Kajiado, District Surveyor Kajiado, The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development & The Honourable Attorney General

1. The Plaintiff/Applicant, moved this Court by way of a Notice of Motion dated 28th April 2026, expressed to be brought under section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Cap. 8, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Article 159(2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The application is directed principally against the 1st Defendant/Respondent and seeks, inter alia, his committal for contempt on account of alleged disobedience of the Court orders issued on 3rd June 2025. 2. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mukami Gatonye, the Director of the Plaintiff/Applicant, sworn on 28th April 2026. The deponent avers that the Applicant is the registered proprietor of all that parcel of land known as Kajiado/Kaputiei North/2334, measuring approximately 1.62 hectares, which she states was purchased in or about 2015 from Jane Njoki Njunge as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. 3. It is the Applicant's case that, following alleged encroachment and trespass by the 1st Defendant upon the suit property, the Applicant instituted the present proceedings and, on 3rd June 2025, this Court issued interim orders maintaining the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The Applicant further avers that on 23rd March 2026, in the presence __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 2

page 2 of 19

of Counsel for all the parties, the Court expressly confirmed that the status quo orders remained in force and were binding upon the parties. 4. The Applicant alleges that notwithstanding the subsistence of the said orders, the 1st Defendant proceeded to interfere with the suit property by, among other things, erecting a barbed-wire fence, commencing construction of a permanent structure, permitting third parties to enter upon and scout the property, and causing the property to be advertised for sale on social media platforms. The Applicant consequently contends that the 1st Defendant has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of the Court and is thereby in contempt of Court. 5. The application seeks the following orders: a) Spent b) THAT the 1st Defendant/Respondent be cited for contempt of court for willful disobedience of the Court Orders issued on the 3rd of June 2025. c) THAT upon a finding of contempt, the 1st Defendant/Respondent be punished by committal to civil jail or such other sanction as this Honourable Court may deem fit. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 3

page 3 of 19

d) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an Order directing the Land Registrar, Kajiado, to register a Restriction on the parcel of land known as KAJIADO/KAPUTIEI NORTH/2334 pending the hearing and determination of this suit. e) THAT the Plaintiff/Applicant be authorized to place a visible Cautionary Notice on the property known as KAJIADO/KAPUTIEI NORTH/2334 informing the public of the ongoing litigation and the status quo orders. f) THAT this Honourable Court be pleased to issue an Order directing the OCS, Isinya Police Station, to supervise and ensure enforcement of prayer 5 above. g) THAT the costs of this application be borne by the 1st Defendant/Respondent. 6. The application is opposed by the 1st Defendant/Respondent, who swore a Replying Affidavit in response thereto. The 1st Defendant denies the allegations of contempt and, in particular, denies having visited the suit property after 3rd June 2025. He contends that the allegations made against him are unfounded and that the application is intended to harass him. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 4

page 4 of 19

7. The 1st Defendant's response is, in substance, that following the judgment of this Court dated 29th July 2024 in ELC No. 401 of 2017, he proceeded to implement the judgment by undertaking various subdivisions and consolidations of parcels of land. He avers that the parcel known as Kajiado/Kaputiei North/144280, which he states arose from the subdivision of Kajiado/Kaputiei North/705, was subsequently sold to Mr. Hezekiah Kariuki Mwangi, and that thereafter ceased to have an interest in that parcel. 8. The 1st Defendant further denies having erected the alleged barbed-wire fence or constructed a permanent structure upon the suit property. He also denies having permitted third parties to enter, scout or trespass upon the property, or having advertised the property for sale on social media. He maintains that, after selling the parcel in question, he had no further interest therein and did not return to the area. 9. The 1st Defendant acknowledges being aware of the Court's order of 23rd March 2026, but maintains that he has not interfered with the status quo in relation to the parcel he sold. He consequently urges the Court to strike out or dismiss the application, describing it as scandalous, frivolous and vexatious and contending that it is intended to harass him. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 5

page 5 of 19

10.In response to the 1st Defendant's assertions, the Applicant filed a Further Affidavit sworn by Mukami Gatonye. The deponent avers that the judgment in ELC No. 401 of 2017, heavily relied upon by the 1st Defendant, was actually set aside along with its orders on 21st May 2026 by the Honourable Lady Justice L. Komingoi, the very judge who delivered it. The Applicant contends that the 1st Defendant's counsel was present during the setting aside of this judgment, making the failure to inform this Court a deliberate attempt to conceal material facts and mislead the Court. 11. The Applicant further denies the 1st Defendant's claim that the Mpaashe family allowed him to place beacons, noting that they were neither the registered owners nor the occupants of the suit property at the time of the invasion. Furthermore, the Applicant asserts that the 1st Defendant acted in bad faith by purporting to dispose of the property on 9th April 2025, fully aware that the hearing of the application had proceeded on 3rd April 2025 and the determination was actively pending. 12.The Applicant maintains that acting upon a set-aside judgment is unlawful and amounts to gross contempt of court, and indicates an intention to bring an action against the purported purchaser in due course. Directions __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 6

page 6 of 19

13.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions, the submissions of which have been duly considered in the writing of this ruling. Analysis and Determination 14.The singular issue that arises for determination is; Whether, in light of the evidence and the applicable law, the Plaintiff/Applicant has established sufficient grounds to warrant the grant of the orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 28th April 2026. 15.The application principally seeks the citation and punishment of the 1st Defendant/Respondent for alleged willful and deliberate disobedience of the Court orders issued on 3rd June 2025. The Applicant also seeks orders intended to preserve the suit property, namely registration of a restriction against Kajiado/Kaputiei North/2334, authority to place a visible cautionary notice upon the property and an order for the OCS, Isinya Police Station, to supervise and ensure enforcement thereof. 16.The jurisdiction of this Court to punish for contempt is founded upon section 5 of the Judicature Act, Cap. 8, as read with section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011. Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act provides: __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 7

page 7 of 19

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have the same power to punish for contempt of court as is for the time being possessed by the High Court of Justice in England.” 17.The importance of obedience to orders of the Court cannot be overstated. Court orders are not issued in vain and parties are bound to obey them unless and until they are discharged, varied or set aside by a competent Court. As the Environment and Land Court observed in King’ori v Oloo & another (Applying as legal administrators of the Estate of the Late Oloo Agoro Oloo) [2025] KEELC 158 (KLR), “Striving to abide by court orders is not an option. It protects the dignity and the authority and a rule of law. It must be zealously guarded by the court by dealing firmly with any person who deliberately disobeys court orders or attempts to scuttle the court's process.” 18.At the same time, the power to punish for contempt is a coercive and penal jurisdiction and must therefore be exercised with circumspection. The Applicant bears the burden of establishing the ingredients of contempt to the requisite standard. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 8

page 8 of 19

19.The applicable principles were recently restated in Njunu Farmers’ Co- operative Society v CKK Estates (1973) Limited & 4 others [2025] KEELC 8569 (KLR), where the Court stated: “For an application seeking to cite and punish a litigant for contempt to succeed, the Applicant must demonstrate willful disobedience of the subject order. The order itself must be clear enough as to leave no doubt as what is to be done or refrained from and by whom.” The Court further reiterated that: “...to sustain committal for contempt of Court, the order of the Court that is alleged to have been deliberately disobeyed must be clear and precise so as to leave no doubt as to what a party was supposed to do or to refrain from doing.” And as to the standard of proof, the Court affirmed that: “...the standard of proof in committal proceedings is higher than proof on a balance of probabilities, though not as high as proof beyond reasonable doubt...” 20. The same approach was adopted in Lorkoyo & another v Lorkoyo (Environment and Land Appeal E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4835 (KLR) , where the Court considered the requirements for establishing willful and __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 9

page 9 of 19

deliberate disobedience of a Court order and the applicable standard of proof. 21. In the present case, there is no serious dispute that this Court issued orders on 3rd June 2025 maintaining the status quo. It is also the Applicant's case that on 23rd March 2026, in the presence of Counsel for the parties, the Court confirmed that the status quo orders remained in force. Significantly, the 1st Defendant acknowledges knowledge of the Court's order of 23rd March 2026. 22. The first requirement concerning knowledge of the order is therefore substantially satisfied. However, knowledge of a Court order, without proof of disobedience, does not by itself amount to contempt. The Court must determine whether the particular acts complained of occurred and, more importantly, whether they are attributable to the 1st Defendant. 23. The Applicant alleges that notwithstanding the subsistence of the orders, the 1st Defendant erected a barbed-wire fence, commenced construction of a permanent structure, permitted third parties to enter and scout the suit property and caused the property to be advertised for sale through social media platforms. In support of those allegations, the Applicant placed before the Court photographs and electronic material, including Facebook __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 10

page 10 of 19

and TikTok links. The electronic material was accompanied by a Certificate of Electronic Evidence. 24. The Court has carefully considered that material. The photographs demonstrate activity upon the property. They show, among other things, a fenced portion of land and persons apparently present upon the property. The social-media material similarly demonstrates that certain content relating to the property was placed on the identified platforms. 25. The 1st Defendant categorically denies having visited the suit property after 3rd June 2025. He denies erecting the fence, undertaking construction, permitting third parties onto the property or advertising the property for sale. He further maintains that he had disposed of the parcel in question and had thereafter ceased to have an interest therein. 26. Contempt being personal in nature, the Court cannot find a person guilty merely because an act complained of occurred on property with which that person was previously associated. There must be a sufficient evidential nexus between the alleged contemnor and the act constituting the breach. 27. The Applicant's electronic evidence does not, in itself, establish that the 1st Defendant authored or controlled the relevant social-media accounts, uploaded the impugned material or directed another person to do so. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 11

page 11 of 19

Likewise, the photographs do not identify the 1st Defendant as the person who erected the fence or commenced the construction depicted therein. 28. The Certificate of Electronic Evidence establishes the manner in which the electronic material was downloaded, stored and printed. It does not, without more, establish the identity of the person responsible for the underlying content or conduct. 29. This distinction is important because the standard applicable in contempt proceedings is higher than the ordinary civil standard. The Court cannot bridge an evidential gap merely by inference where the consequence sought is committal to jail. 30. The Applicant further places considerable reliance upon the alleged sale of the property on 9th April 2025. It is contended that the 1st Defendant acted in bad faith because the hearing of the application had taken place on 3rd April 2025 and the determination was pending. 31. That allegation may raise serious questions concerning the propriety and legal consequences of the transaction. However, the Court must distinguish between an act which may be unlawful or improper and an act which constitutes contempt of a particular Court order. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 12

page 12 of 19

32. The alleged sale occurred on 9th April 2025, whereas the status quo orders relied upon in the present contempt application were issued on 3rd June 2025. An act completed before the order came into existence cannot, without more, constitute disobedience of that subsequent order. 33. The Applicant also relies upon the subsequent setting aside of the judgment in ELC No. 401 of 2017. The Court has taken note of the Applicant's contention that the judgment was set aside on 21st May 2026, and that the 1st Defendant's Counsel was present when the order was made. 34. That development may have considerable bearing on the substantive dispute between the parties and on the legal consequences of any transactions undertaken pursuant to the judgment. It does not, however, automatically establish contempt of the order of 3rd June 2025. The Court must determine the alleged contempt by reference to the terms of the order and the conduct said to constitute its breach. 35. On the evidence before me, I am unable to find, to the requisite standard, that the 1st Defendant personally undertook or authorized the acts complained of after the order of 3rd June 2025. The evidence establishes that activities occurred upon or in relation to the suit property, but it does __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 13

page 13 of 19

not sufficiently establish the 1st Defendant's personal responsibility for those activities. 36. Accordingly, the allegation of willful and deliberate disobedience has not been proved to the standard required in contempt proceedings. 37. I therefore find that the prayer for citation of the 1st Defendant for contempt and the consequential prayer for committal to civil jail or other sanction are not merited. 38. That finding does not, however, conclude the entire application. The Court must still consider whether the evidence discloses sufficient cause for preservation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. 39. The Applicant seeks, in particular, registration of a restriction against Kajiado/Kaputiei North/2334. 40. Section 76(1) of the Land Registration Act, 2012 provides: “For the purposes of compulsory acquisition the prevention of any fraud or improper dealing or for any other sufficient cause, the Registrar may, either with or without the application of any person interested in the land, lease or charge, and after directing such inquiries to be made and notices to be served and hearing such __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 14

page 14 of 19

persons as the Registrar considers fit, make an order (hereinafter referred to as a restriction) prohibiting or restricting dealings with any particular land, lease or charge.” Section 76(2) further provides: “A restriction may be expressed to endure— (a) for a particular period; (b) until the occurrence of a particular event; or (c) until the making a further order is made, and may prohibit or restrict all dealings or only the dealings that do not comply with specified conditions, and the restriction shall be registered in the appropriate register.” 41.The purpose of a restriction is essentially preservatory. It protects the register and the subject matter of a dispute from dealings that may prejudice the rights of the parties or complicate the eventual enforcement of the Court's determination. 42. In Mutisya & another v Mugambi & another (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 5847 (KLR) , the Court recognized the power conferred upon the Land Registrar under section 76 to place restrictions for prevention of fraud, improper dealing or other sufficient cause. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 15

page 15 of 19

43. More recently, in Cheplaiti v Land Registrar & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E044 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 906 (KLR) , the Court emphasized that a restriction cannot remain indefinitely without a justifiable legal basis. 44. In the present matter, the Applicant asserts registered ownership of Kajiado/Kaputiei North/2334 and has placed before the Court evidence of an ongoing dispute concerning the property. The Applicant has also demonstrated that there have been competing assertions concerning dealings with the land and that the property remains the subject matter of the pending proceedings. 45. In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the Court's duty to preserve the subject matter of litigation, I find that sufficient cause has been demonstrated for preservation of the register pending determination of the substantive suit. The grant of a restriction at this stage does not amount to a final determination of ownership. It merely preserves the property and the register so that the eventual judgment of the Court is not rendered a mere academic exercise. 46. The prayer for a visible cautionary notice requires a different consideration. The Applicant seeks authority to place a notice on the physical property __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 16

page 16 of 19

informing members of the public of the pending litigation and the subsisting status quo orders. 47. In my view, such a notice may appropriately be permitted as a limited preservatory measure. It should, however, not be used as a means of asserting rights beyond those presently determined by the Court or as a substitute for lawful enforcement procedures. The notice should therefore merely inform the public that the property is the subject of pending proceedings before this Court and is subject to existing Court orders. 48. As regards the prayer directing the OCS, Isinya Police Station, to supervise enforcement of the notice, the Court must exercise restraint. The police are responsible for maintaining law and order and cannot be converted into agents for enforcing disputed proprietary rights. The Court therefore finds no basis for granting the prayer in the broad terms sought. 49. The police may, of course, act in accordance with their statutory mandate where there is a breach of the peace or other unlawful conduct. That is distinct from directing them to supervise a private party's assertion of proprietary rights over disputed land. Having considered the application as a whole, the Court therefore finds that the Applicant has not proved the allegation of contempt against the 1st Defendant to the requisite standard, __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 17

page 17 of 19

but has demonstrated sufficient cause for preservation of the suit property pending determination of the suit. The application consequently succeeds in part. 50. Accordingly, the Notice of Motion dated 28th April 2026 is hereby disposed of in the following terms: 1. The Land Registrar, Kajiado, shall register a restriction against Kajiado/Kaputiei North/2334, restricting dealings with the said parcel pending the hearing and determination of this suit or further orders of the Court. 2. The Plaintiff/Applicant is authorized to place a visible notice on the suit property informing members of the public that the property is the subject of pending proceedings before this Court and is subject to subsisting Court orders. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs of the application. Orders accordingly. Dated Signed and Delivered Virtually this 24th Day of September 2026. M.D. MWANGI JUDGE __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 18

page 18 of 19

In the virtual presence of: Mr. Ngetich for the Plaintiff/Applicant Mr. Aswani for the 1st Defendant/Respondent Mr. Ndungu h/b for Mr. Kuria for the 2nd – 5th Defendants Mr. Serpepi for the proposed Interested Party Court Assistant: Alex M.D. MWANGI JUDGE __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCLC E025/25 19

page 19 of 19