https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3352

Christian Foundation Fellowship Kenya v Board of Management, St Paul’S Primary School & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E19 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3352 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3352 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru Environment and Land Case E19 of 2023 LC Komingoi, J June 4, 2026 Between Christian Foundation Fellowship Kenya Plaintiff and The Board Of Management, St Paul’S Primary School 1st Defendant The Secretary Board Of Management, St Paul’S Primary School 2nd Defendant The Chief, Bondeni Area, Nakuru County 3rd Defendant Timothy Muinde Kitetu 4th Defendant Hon.The Attorney General 5th Defendant Ruling 1.This is a ruling in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 18th November 2025 brought under Order 40 Rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act and all other enabling provisions of the Law. 2.It seeks orders:1.Spent2.Spent3.That the Honorable Court do hereby commit the 1st and 2nd Defendants herein the Contemnors, to Civil jail for a maximum of six months for breach of the decree issued by Hon. Lady Justice M. A Odeny on the 9th November, 2023.4.That the Officer Commanding Bondeni Police station be and is hereby ordered to ensure compliance in terms of the decree issued by this Honorable Court on the 9th November, 2023.5.That the costs of this application be borne by the Defendant/Contemnors.6.That this Honorable Court be pleased to issue such further or other reliefs as this Honorable Court may deem fit, just and expedient to grant. 3.The grounds are in the face of the Application and are set out in paragraphs 1 to 11. 4.The Application is supported by the Affidavit of John Edward Kihato Nduati, one of the Trustees of the Plaintiffs/Applicant sworn on the 18th November 2025. 5.The Application is opposed. There are grounds of opposition filed by the Attorney General dated 24th February 2026. 6.On the 11th March 2026, the Court with the consent of the parties, directed that the Notice of Motion be canvassed by way of written submissions. 7.The Plaintiff /Decree Holder’s submissions are dated 20th April 2026. They raise two issued for determination: -a.Whether the firm of Minishi & Associates Advocates is properly on record.b.Whether the Respondents’ wilful disobedience of the Decree dated 9th November 2023 issued by Honorable M. A Odeny (Dr.) J. constitutes contempt of Court. 8.It is submitted that this Honorable Court formally granted oral leave for the Plaintiff/Applicant’s counsel to enter appearance, a fact that is clearly captured in the record of the Court. 9.It is also submitted that the Law on contempt is well settled following the precedent set by Mativo J in Samuel N Mweru & others Vs National Land Commission & 2 others (2020) eKLR. 10.Counsel further submitted that the Respondents were fully aware of the subsistence of a valid Court Order and Decree. That the Decree remains in force and its terms are clear yet the Respondents have chosen to treat it with total levity.Reliance is placed on the case of Shimmers Plaza Limited Vs National Bank of Kenya Limited (2015) eKLR. 11.It is submitted that proper Personal service of both the application and annexed decree were duly effected on all parties.Further that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have repeatedly and unlawfully refused the Plaintiff/Applicant entry and/or access to the said property and continue to interfere with the property contrary to the Decree. 12.It is submitted that the Plaintiff/Applicant has demonstrated prima facie obstruction hence the burden must shift to the Respondents to prove affirmative compliance which they have failed to do so.It prays that the Application be allowed with costs. 13.By the time of writing this ruling, the Defendant’s/Respondents had not filed any written submissions. 14.I have considered the Notice of Motion, the affidavit in support, the responses thereto, the written submission and the authorities cited. The issues for determination are: -i.Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendant Respondents have unlawfully disobeyed the order and Decree dated 9th November 2023.ii.Who should bear costs of this application? 15.In the case of Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd Vs Minister for Information and Communication of Kenya Authority (2005) elk, Ibrahim J. (as he then was) stated as follows:-“It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law and order that the authority and dignity of our courts are upheld at all times. The court will not consider deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy away from its responsibility to deal firmly with proved contemnors.It is plain and unqualified obligation of every person against whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until the orders discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by the order believes it to be irregular or void”. 16.In the light of the gravity of the personal consequences that would ordinarily come from a finding of contempt, the law requires proof that the one in question was brought to the attention of the alleged contemnor as proof that he /she had Personal knowledge of the said order. 17.It is the Plaintiff’s/Applicant’s case that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have declined to grant access to it and to develop the suit property yet the Decree has never been challenged. 18.It is also the Plaintiff’s/Applicants’ contention that the Respondents were aware of the Decree and the same was issued in the presence of Miss Wanjeri who represented them. The same order and Decree were subsequently served on all parties. 19.I am of the view that the above averments have not been challenged. I have gone through the grounds of opposition dated 24th February 2026 and find that they do not sufficiently respond to the Plaintiff/Applicant’s averments. 20.In the grounds of opposition, the Respondents do not deny knowledge of the said Decree. 21.In the case of Oilfield Movers Limited Vs Zahara Oil & Gas Ltd Gas Ltd (2020) eKLR the court stated thus:-“It is important however that the court satisfies itself beyond any shadow of doubt that the person alleged to be in contempt committed the act complained of with full knowledge and notice of the existence of the order of the court forbidding it.The threshold is quite high as it involves possible deprivation of a person’s liberty…….”I am satisfied that the 1st and 2nd Respondents were aware of the order and or decree of this court. 22.In the absence of any explanation as to why the Plaintiff/Applicant is unable to access it’s property I find that the Respondent have unlawfully disobeyed the said order and or decree. 23.In the conclusion I find merit in this application and grant the orders sought namely: -a.That the Notice to show cause is hereby issued requiring the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents to attend court on the 1st July 2026 to explain why they have disobeyed the order and decree issued by M.A Odeny (Dr.) J. on the 9th November 2023 on theb.That costs of this application shall be in the cause. RULING DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU VIRTUALLY THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.L KOMINGOIJUDGEIn the presence of: -No appearance for the Plaintiff/Decree HolderNo appearance for the Defendants/RespondentsCourt Assistant: Derrick/ Irene