https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4061

Chunky Ltd & another v Ndune & 11 others (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 1 of 2022 & Environment and Land Case 273 of 2017 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 4061 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4061 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kwale Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 1 of 2022 & Environment and Land Case 273 of 2017 (Consolidated) LL Naikuni, J June 29, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: ARTICLES 10, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 40, 258 & SECTION 19 OF SIXTH SCHEDULE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF: CONTRAVENTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOOMS UNDER ARTICLE 21 & 22 OF THE CONSTITUTION Between Chunky Limited 1st Petitioner Curly Wurly Limited 2nd Petitioner and Patrick Ndune 1st Respondent Mohamed Abdi Kahiye 2nd Respondent Sahal Ahmed Dahil 3rd Respondent Kahia Transporters Limited 4th Respondent Trade Lead Limited 5th Respondent Ministry Of Lands,Housing & Urban Development 6th Respondent Director Of Survey 7th Respondent Chief Land Registrar 8th Respondent County Land Registrar 9th Respondent National Land Commission 10th Respondent Attorney General 11th Respondent Edward Kiguru 12th Respondent Ruling I. Introduction 1.This Honourable Court was called upon to make a determination onto the Notice of Motion application dated 4th May, 2026 filed by Kahia Transporters Limited and Trade Lead Limited, the Applicants herein. It was filed in the Civil Case of:- “ELC Case No. 273 OF 2017. The Application was brought under the provisions of Sections 1A & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 21, Section 5 of the Judicature Act Cap. 8 Rule 39 of the High Court Organization and Administration General Rules, 2016, Section 5 (1) of the Judicature Act (with regard to the Contempt of Court), and any other enabling provisions of the Law. 2.Upon service of the Application, while opposing the application, the 1st Petitioner/Respondents and namely Chunky Limited, Curly Wurly Limited, and the National Land Commission, responded by filing replies one sworn on 16th June, 2026 and 12th May, 2026 respectively vigorously disputing the allegations of contempt. The Respondents contend that the activities complained of related to all that parcel of land known as Plot No. MN/VI/224, lawfully transferred to, registered and owned by Chunky Limited, and not the suit properties known as Land Reference Numbers MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910 as alleged. 3.The Applicants emphatically maintained that despite the subsistence of clear and binding status quo orders issued on 24th July, 2017 and subsequently preserved by consent on 13th March, 2018 and 1st April, 2019, the Defendants had willfully and deliberately disobeyed the said orders by undertaking extensive excavation activities on the suit properties, thereby undermining the substratum of the pending suit and hence necessitating the institution of this application. 4.Upon service of the application, the Respondents filed Grounds of Opposition dated 16th June, 2026 and replies in form of Replying Affidavits while opposing the said application thereof. The Honourable Court has critically considered them hereof. 5.Being trite law that the Court have as a matter of convention first and foremost dispose off any interlocutory application, and therefore, on 4th May, 2026 when the matter was slated for full trial directed that it as a matter of priority makes a determination of this impugned application. That is the gist and substance of this Ruling thereof. II. The case by the Applicants 6.The Applicants sought for the following orders: -a.Spent.b.That this Honourable Court be pleased to cite the Respondents' Directors, namely Harji Govind Ruda, Renuka H.G. Ruda and Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha, for willful and deliberate disobedience of this Court's express Order issued on 24th July, 2017.c.That this Honourable Court be pleased to demand and direct the said Directors, Harji Govind Ruda, Renuka H.G. Ruda, and Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha, to personally appear before this Court to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for a period of six (6) months, or such other sentence as may be found fair and just in the circumstances, for being in flagrant disobedience of Court orders.d.That an order of committal be and is hereby issued against the said Directors, Harji Govind Ruda, Renuka H.G. Ruda, and Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha, committing them to civil jail for a period of six (6) months.e.Spent.f.That the Respondents be directed by this Court to purge their contempt by remedying all damages caused to the suit properties arising from their flagrant breach of the Order issued on 24th July, 2017.g.That costs be borne by the Defendants/Respondents jointly. 7.The application by the Applicant was premised on the grounds, facts and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 14 Paragraphed annexed affidavit of OSMAN KAHIA, the director of the 1st Applicant averred that:a.The Plaintiffs had instituted the suit seeking, inter alia, orders of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from trespassing upon the suit properties and a declaration of ownership thereof. Annexed and marked as ‘OK – 01” was a copy of the Plaint.b.Despite of the pendency of the suit, the Defendants unlawfully entered the suit properties and commenced illegal excavations causing damage thereto. The Applicants were prompted to file an Application dated 24th July, 2017 seeking temporary injunctive orders, which Application was certified as urgent and ex - parte orders were issued restraining the Defendants from trespass and/or excavation. Annexed and marked as “OK – 02” was a copy of the ex-parte Order issued on 24th July, 2017.c.The 1st and 2nd Defendants filed an Application dated 3rd August, 2017 seeking to set aside the said ex-parte orders and to strike out the suit. Annexed and marked as “OK – 03” was a copy of the said Application.d.Before the said Applications could be heard, the Defendants flagrantly breached the Court Order issued on 24th July, 2017 through continued trespass and excavation, necessitating a Contempt of Court Application by the Applicants dated 30th August, 2017. Annexed and marked as “OK – 04” was a copy of the Application.e.The Applicants proceeded to amend the said Application on 25th September, 2017 seeking enforcement and Contempt orders. Annexed and marked as “OK – 05” was a copy of the Application.i.On 13th March, 2018, parties appeared before Hon. Lady Justice A. Omollo and recorded a Consent maintaining status quo orders as issued on 24th July, 2017 by Hon. Justice Yano pending determination of the three Applications, namely:-i.Applicants’ Application dated 24th July, 2017 seeking injunctive reliefs;ii.Defendants’ Application dated 3rd August, 2017 seeking review of the ex - parte Order issued on 24th July, 2017 and striking out of the suit; andiii.Applicants’ Application dated 25th September, 2017 seeking Contempt of Court Orders. Annexed and marked as “OK – 06” was a copy of the Order issued on 13th March, 2018.f.On 1st April, 2019, parties again agreed by way of Consent to abandon all the pending Applications while maintaining the status quo directions issued on 24th July, 2017 so as to prioritize the hearing of the main suit. Parties further consented to join the 3rd Defendant in the suit.g.Notwithstanding the above Consent and the intention by the parties to proceed with the hearing of the main suit, the 3rd Defendant filed an Application dated 7th October, 2020 seeking similar reliefs of review and setting aside of the status quo Orders issued on 24th July, 2017 while also seeking striking out of the suit. Annexed and marked as “OK – 07” was a copy of the said Application.h.Upon hearing of the said Application, Hon. Justice Yano issued a Ruling on 22nd March, 2021 dismissing the Application dated 7th October, 2020 for lack of merit. The status quo orders persisted to date. Annexed and marked as “OK – 08” was a copy of the Ruling.i.On 26th March, 2026, he visited the suit property and found the Defendants excavating the land, thereby damaging the environment. He immediately instructed a Land Surveyor, Messrs. Edward Kiguru Land Surveyors, through his Advocates on record to ascertain the extent of the excavations and dredging of the drainage channels.j.Vide the Land Survey report dated 16th April, 2026, the said Land Surveyor observed wanton damage to the land and degradation of the environment on the subject properties. Further, the Land Surveyor observed that excavation activities were still ongoing. Annexed and marked as “OK – 09” was a copy of the said Report.k.The Defendants continued to take illegal action through settling of excavators in the suit properties and carrying out excavations, thereby obliterating the integrity of the suit properties despite the existence of status quo orders pending the determination of the suit.l.The Applicants were apprehensive that continuous breach of this Court’s Orders served a detrimental effect upon the Applicants’ rights in the suit. The structural integrity of the suit properties would have been significantly altered by the Defendants if the Court did not intervene to enforce its Orders issued on 24th July, 2017.m.He was advised by his advocates on record, whose advice he verily believed to be true, that Court Orders were not to be issued in vain and as such were not meant for cosmetic purposes.n.The Applicants continued to cast reasonable apprehension given that this was a re - occurrence where the Defendants had been notorious at breaching this Honourable Court’s orders. The initial breach of the Court’s Orders had prompted the Applicants to file the Application dated 25th September, 2017, which was later abandoned by Consent for purposes of prioritizing the hearing of the main suit.o.The matter then pending the hearing of the main suit, the Defendants had again reverted back to the said breach by constantly carrying out excavations on the suit property. The status quo order issued by the Court on 24th July, 2017 had been very clear and unambiguous, with all parties being fully aware of the same. The proceedings of 1st April, 2019 further confirmed that all the parties were aware and well apprised of the status quo orders in place.p.The Applicants stood to suffer grave, irreparable harm and injustice if the Defendants continued to disregard the status quo Orders in place issued on 24th July, 2017. The Applicants continued to register apprehension.q.He was advised by his Advocates on record, which advice he verily believed to be true, that the orders issued by this Honourable Court on 24th July, 2017 and subsequently preserved by consent of the parties were valid, binding, clear and unambiguous, and remained in force to date.r.The Defendants had at all material times full knowledge of the said orders, having actively participated in proceedings where the same were issued, preserved and reaffirmed, including the consents recorded on 13th March, 2018 and 1st April, 2019.s.Despite such knowledge, the Defendants had deliberately, willfully and contumaciously disobeyed the said orders by re-entering the suit properties and undertaking excavation activities in blatant violation of the status quo.t.The actions of the Defendants were not accidental or inadvertent but were part of a consistent and calculated pattern of disobedience of this Honourable Court’s authority, as evidenced by prior breaches which had earlier necessitated the filing of contempt proceedings.u.The Defendants’ continued acts of excavation amounted to ongoing contempt, which not only undermined the authority and dignity of this Honourable Court but also rendered the judicial process nugatory if left unchecked.v.He was further advised, which advice he believed to be sound in law, that Court Orders must be obeyed at all times unless and until set aside, and no party was entitled to choose which orders to comply with.w.The Defendants’ conduct demonstrated open defiance of lawful Court orders and an intention to defeat the ends of justice by altering the substratum of the suit properties before the main suit was heard and determined.x.Unless the Honourable Court intervened urgently and decisively by punishing the said contempt and enforcing compliance, the Defendants would have continued with their unlawful acts, thereby causing irreparable damage to the suit properties and grave prejudice to the Applicants.y.It was in the interest of justice, and to uphold the rule of law, that this Honourable Court reasserted its authority by finding the Defendants in contempt and issuing appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to committal, fines, and/or orders for restoration of the suit properties.z.What was set out hereinabove was true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. III. The Grounds of Opposition by the Respondents 8.The Respondents opposed the application dated 4th May, 2026 on the following grounds:-a.The application had not produced any evidence direct or even circumstantial to link the Respondents to the alleged excavations.b.The photographs attached by the Applicant as evidence of the alleged excavation were not admissible in evidence since they were not supported by Certificate of Electronic evidence as required by the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.c.As a matter of fact, the alleged excavations never existed and the surface of the suit properties is still covered by natural vegetation as it had always been.d.The purported opinion/expert evidence of Surveyor Kiguru was not independent and was not admissible since contrary to various decisions including “Xenocon Consulting Engineeers Limited – Versus - Debra Linmited (2026 EHC 2615 (KLR)” , Surveyor Kiguru was the 12th Respondent in the main suit that was “ELC Kwale Petition No 1of 2022 Chunky Lit and Curly Wurly Limited OS Patrick Ndune & 11 Others. A Court could not admit evidence of a party as an expert witness in his own case since it offended the rule against bias.e.In addition, under the provision of Section 48 (2) of the Evidence Act, the report of Mr. Kiguru could not be admitted as opinion of Expert Witness since there was self-incriminating evidence of Surveyor Kiguru establishing that he was so incompetent that he could not be regarded as an expert in Survey by any measure. The evidence was:-i).Mr. Kiguru swore established his incompetence and lack of professionalism by swearing and filing an affidavit on 18th October, 2018 in this matter confessing that he was the one who caused the dispute in this matter by purporting to carry out New Grant Survey on the suit property long after it was delineated and become private property in the 1920's as MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910.ii).Mr. Kiguru wrote a letter dated 16th October, 2018 addressed to the Director of Survey pleading with the Director of Survey to cancel the purported titles of MN/VI/5151, MN/VI/5153, and MN/VI/5154 on ground that the titles are illegal for overlapping on pre-existing MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910.iii).Despite confessions and remorse his said affidavit and letter, Surveyor Kiguru's report was to-date still referring to the suit property by the illegal MN/VI/5151,MN/VI/5153, and MN/VI/5154.iv).True to his incompetence, even the photographs he annexed in his report as evidence of the alleged excavation could not be geo-located on the suit property.f.To avoid any doubts as to whether there was excavation on the suit property, the Respondents invite the Court to visit the suit property, inspect the ground, and make its own observations.g.In totality, the application had miserably failed to prove the alleged contempt beyond the standard of any reasonable doubt required in the contempt applications or even the balance of probabilities.h.The contempt application had no merit, and was an abuse of court process filed with the sole objective of delaying the hearing and determination of the main suit as could be seen from the series of last-minute applications invariably filed on the eve of the hearing and adjournments obtained each day the matter comes up for hearing of the main suit.i.The application should be dismissed with costs to the Respondents in the application. IV. The Replying Affidavit by the 1st Petitioner/Respondent 9.While opposing the application, the 1st Petitioner/Respondent filed a 15 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit dated 16th June, 2026 and sworn by HARJI GOVIND RUDA of P.O. Box 80559, Mombasa. He averred as follows that:-a.He was the Director of the 1st Petitioner/Respondent company herein, duly authorized by Renuka H.G. Guda , and the company to swear, to file this Replying Affidavit, and well versed with the facts relating to the contempt application dated 4th May, 2026.b.As a Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Chunky Limited, he had not by himself, the board, employees, servants, agents carried out any excavation on the suit property as alleged in the contempt application or at all.c.He had inquired from Renuka H.G. Guda and employees of the company as to whether any of them had been involved in the alleged excavations and all had denied having been involved and were not even aware of the alleged excavations.d.After he was served with the contempt application, he visited the suit property severally to find out about the alleged excavation and he noted the following:-i.There was no excavation at all on the suit properties.ii.The surface of the suit properties was covered with the natural vegetation as it had always been.e.Chunky Limited Commissioned a surveyor one B.C. Mwanyungu to find if there was excavations on the property on the property.f.2He was informed by the said surveyor that he carried visited the property on 15th May, 2026 and observed the following:-i.There was no excavations on the suit property.ii.The surface of the suit property was undisturbed.g.He annexed the Survey report dated 4th June, 2026 here and marked it as “H – 1”.h.He believed that the contempt application was purely intended to delay the hearing of the main suit on 4th May, 2026 and to derail the full hearing since the Applicants filed the application a day before the hearing commenced that was on the same day the hearing of the main suit was set to begin.i.The Survey Report prepared by Edward Kiguru could not be admitted as expert opinion evidence because:-i).Surveyor Kiguru was not independent or neutral in this matter since he was the 12th Respondent in the lead file in the consolidated matters that was in the Civil Suit No. “ELC Petition No.1 of 2022 Kwale Chunky Limited and Curly Wurly Limited – Versus - Patrick Ndune and 11 others”.ii).The law of evidence required expert/Opinion witnesses to be independent and not biased.iii).Admitting the report of the 12th Respondent in the Petition as the Expert evidence under the provision of Section 48 (2) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80 would violate the natural justice rule against bias.j.In addition, the report prepared by Land Surveyor Kiguru did not qualify to be admitted under the provision Section 48 (2) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80 as expert evidence since Surveyor Kiguru was too incompetent and too unprofessional to be referred as an expert in survey.k.The evidence of the his incompetence and unprofessionalism was shown by his confession that he was the one who created this dispute by purporting to carry out a New Grant Survey in years 2015 - 2016 on the suit property despite records showing that the suit properties were delineated and became private property way back in the year 1920's. He annexed a copy of an Affidavit sworn by the Edward M.J.Kiguru sworn on 18th October, 2018 and marked as “H – 2” and Letter dated 16th October, 2018 and marked as “H – 3” in which Surveyor Kiguru acknowledged that.l.Harji Govind RudaConsistent with the incompetence, the photographs annexed by Surveyor Kiguru in his report as evidence of the alleged excavation could not be traced to any particular part of the suit property. SUBPARAGRAPH m.He attached and marked as “H – 4” was a copy of the Certificate of electronic evidence for the photographs in the report of Surveyor B.C. Mwanyungu.n.To avoid any doubts as to whether there was excavation on the suit property, he invited the Court to visit the suit property, inspect the ground, and make its own observations.o.All that was deponed to herein was true to the best of his knowledge information and belief. V. The Replying Affidavit by the 2nd Respondent/Petitioner 10.While opposing the application dated 4th May, 2026, the 2nd Petitioner/Respondent filed a 16 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit dated 16th June, 2026 sworn by DINESH KUMAR ZAVERCHAND JETHA of P.O. Box No. 80559, Mombasa and residing in Mombasa within the Republic of Kenya. He averred as follows that:-a.He was the Director of the 2nd Petitioner/Respondent Petitioner company herein, duly authorized by the company to swear, to file this Replying Affidavit. He was well versed with the facts relating to the contempt application dated 4th May, 2026.b.Chunky Limited was the registered and bonafide owner of all that parcel of land known as MV/VI/910 which is part of this suit property.c.As a Director and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Chunky Limited, he had never by myself, the board, employees, servants or agents or carried out any excavation on the suit property as alleged in the contempt application or at all.d.He had inquired from the employees of the company as to whether any of them was involved in the alleged excavations and all had indicated not ever having been involved and were not even aware of the alleged excavations.e.He had visited the suit property and established that as a matter of fact, there were no excavation at all on the suit properties.f.The surface of the suit properties was covered with the natural vegetation as it has always been.g.He was informed by Harji Govind Ruda the Director of Chunky Limited that Chunky Limited Commissioned a surveyor one B.C Mwanyungu to survey the property to find if there were excavations on the property as a matter of fact.h.He was informed by the said surveyor vide Surveyor's report that he carried out survey of the property on 15th May, 2026 and observed the following:-a.There was no excavations on the suit property.b..The surface of the suit property was undisturbed. SUBPARAGRAPH c.The adjoining property MN/VI/224 had some materials dumped on it.i.He annexed the report dated 4th June, 2026 here and mark it as “A -1”.j.Chunky Limited was not involved at all even in the alleged excavation and none exist any way.k.He believed that the contempt application was purely intended to delay the hearing of the main suit on 4th May, 2026 and to derail the full hearing since the Applicants filed the application a day before the hearing commenced that was on the same date for the hearing of the main suit was set to begin.l.The evidence of Surveyor Kiguru could not be safely relied on since had confessed in writing he was the one who created the mess in this dispute by purporting to carry out a New Grant Survey on the suit property when it was already the private since the year 1927 and the Chunky Ltd and Curry Wurly Ltd at the material time. He annexed a copy of an Affidavit sworn by the Edward M.J. Kiguru sworn on 18th October, 2018 marked as “Aa.-2” and Letter dated 16th October, 2018 marked as “A – 3” in which Surveyor Kiguru acknowledging the illegality of the Survey he carried out the resultant title documents held by the 4th and 5th Respondents. He attached and mark as “A – 4” the Certificate of Electronic Evidence.m.In any event, the photographs annexed by Surveyor Kiguru in his report as evidence of the alleged excavation could not be geo-located on any particular part of the suit property.n.To avoid any doubts as to whether there was excavation on the suit property, he invited the Court to visit the suit property, inspect the ground, and make its own observations. VI. The Responses by JULIUS KEA MBAWA a party in the consolidated proceedings 11.Julius Kea Mbawa opposed the application through filing of a 37 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn on 12th May, 2026 where he averred as:a.He was a party in the consolidated proceedings and one of the persons associated with all that parcel known as Plot No. MN/VI/224, hence competent and duly authorised to swear the Affidavit in response to the contempt proceedings filed therein.b.He had read and understood the Notice of Motion application and Supporting Affidavit sworn by Osman Ahmed Kahia alleging breach of Court Orders issued on 24th July, 2017 and wished to respond thereto.c.The allegations made against Chunky Limited, Curly Wurly Limited, and their directors were misleading, materially incomplete, and calculated to create the impression that the Respondents had deliberately undertaken unlawful excavation activities in defiance of the Honourable Court.d.At all material times relevant to the allegations complained of, the activities being undertaken were in relation to all that parcel of land known as Land Reference Plot No. MN/VI/224, a parcel associated with himself and Hamisi Mbawa, and not on the parcel of land known as Plot Nos. MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910 as alleged by the Applicants.e.He was aware that the present proceedings arose from several consolidated suits forming ELC Petition No. 1 of 2022, and that the parties, including the Applicants, had for many years been aware of the existence, occupation, and status of all that parcel of land known as Plot No. MN/VI/224.f.That Plot No. MN/VI/224 had been sold and transferred to Chunky Limited through lawful transactions undertaken openly and transparently.g.The annexed and marked as “JK - 1” was a copy of his Identification Document.h.Annexed and marked as “JK - 2” was a copy of the Transfer relating to the said transaction.i.Following the said sale and transfer, there remained an understanding between himself and Chunky Limited that they would assist in ensuring that the land was placed in a reasonably usable and proper condition.j.In furtherance thereof, certain levelling and backfilling activities were undertaken on portions of the land using material that neighbouring persons and adjoining sites intended to dump within the area.k.The said activities did not amount to deliberate excavation intended to alter the substratum of the disputed properties, nor were they undertaken maliciously or in contempt of Court.l.At no time did he receive or understand there to exist any specific Court Order expressly restraining him personally from undertaking lawful land levelling or maintenance activities on all that parcel of land known as Plot No. MN/VI/224.m.The Affiant averred that the Applicants had deliberately failed to distinguish between Plot No. MN/VI/224 and Plot Nos. MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910, thereby creating confusion intended to improperly attribute all activities within the broader area to Chunky Limited and Curly Wurly Limited.n.Annexed and marked as “JK - 3” was a Survey Drawing showing the location and positioning of Plot No. MN/VI/224 in relation to Plot Nos. MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910.o.The said Survey Drawing clearly demonstrated that the parcel associated with the complained-of activities was distinct and identifiable from the parcels claimed by the Applicants.p.He was extremely familiar with the locality surrounding Plot Nos. MN/VI/224, MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910, having previously served as a Chief within the area for several years, during which period he became well acquainted with the occupation patterns, physical features, access routes, and approximate boundaries within the locality.q.Upon being taken through and having the Applicants’ survey report and allegations explained to him, he verily stated that the same were materially misleading, inaccurate, and false as they failed to properly distinguish the location and activities relating to Plot No. MN/VI/224 from the parcels claimed by the Applicants, thereby creating an erroneous impression that all activities within the area related to Plot Nos. MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910.r.He respectfully believed that the said report was likely to mislead the Honourable Court unless properly contextualized together with the actual location and position of Plot No. MN/VI/224 as shown in the annexed survey drawing.s.There existed no ownership dispute whatsoever between himself and the Applicants over Plot No. MN/VI/224 and that the Applicants had never demonstrated any proprietary interest over the said parcelt.He was advised by his Advocates on record, whose advice he verily believed to be sound in law, that his involvement in the present proceedings arose largely as a consequence of interim and ex - parte orders issued in proceedings connected to ELC No. 405 of 2017, in which allegations relating to boundary issues were raised despite his not having been an original party to the dispute. Annexed was the Plaint and order marked as “JK - 4.”u.He was further advised by his Advocates, which advice he believed to be true, that disputes relating purely to boundaries were by law reserved in the first instance for determination by the Land Registrar and Survey authorities pursuant to the provision of Section 18 (2) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012, which provides as follows:“The Court shall not entertain any action or other proceedings relating to a dispute as to the boundaries of registered land unless the boundaries have been determined in accordance with this section.”v.He was further advised by his Advocates, which advice he verily believed to be sound in law, that where a dispute substantially concerned boundary ascertainment, the proper statutory procedure required the Land Registrar to first visit, ascertain, fix, and determine the boundaries before the Court could properly assume jurisdiction over the matter.w.In the circumstances, he verily believed that continued restriction of activities on Plot No. MN/VI/224 arising from proceedings grounded substantially on unresolved boundary allegations caused undue prejudice to himself notwithstanding the absence of any direct ownership dispute between himself and the Applicants.x.The Applicants had improperly attempted to use generalized status quo orders to restrain lawful use and maintenance activities on a parcel in respect of which no direct ownership dispute had been demonstrated.y.He was advised by his Advocates on record, which advice he verily believed to be true, that contempt proceedings were quasi-criminal in nature and required strict proof of willful and deliberate disobedience of a clear and unambiguous Court Order.z.He was further advised by his Advocates, which advice he verily believed to be sound in law, that no party should be punished for contempt where the alleged order was vague, general, disputed in scope, or incapable of precise enforcement against the conduct complained of. aa.The Orders relied upon by the Applicants referred generally to “status quo” and alleged excavations without specifically identifying the exact activities, exact co - ordinates, exact parcels, or exact persons allegedly prohibited from undertaking lawful works.ab.The Applicants had not demonstrated any deliberate or personal act of disobedience by Harji Govind Ruda, Renuka H.G. Ruda, Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha, Chunky Limited, or Curly Wurly Limited.ac.The Applicants had also failed to demonstrate that the limited land levelling and backfilling activities complained of were undertaken with the intention of defeating the authority of the Honourable Court.ad.The allegations of “continued excavation” and “wanton destruction” were exaggerated and intended to prejudice the Court against the Respondents before the substantive hearing of the consolidated Petition.ae.The Applicants themselves had actively participated in the proceedings over the years and were at all material times aware of the existence of the competing interests and occupation patterns within the area in dispute.af.The present contempt proceedings appeared intended to convert contested factual and land-use disputes into punitive proceedings against the Respondents without satisfying the strict legal threshold required in contempt applications.ag.He respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court be pleased to clarify that the status quo orders relied upon by the Applicants did not extend to lawful activities on Plot No. MN/VI/224 or alternatively that the proceedings and applications founded upon the alleged boundary dispute be struck out and/or referred to the Land Registrar for determination in accordance with the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012.ah.In the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, he respectfully prayed that the Honourable Court permit continued lawful land levelling, maintenance, preservation, and backfilling activities on Plot No. MN/VI/224 pending the hearing and determination of the consolidated proceedings.ai.He verily believed that unless the Honourable Court carefully distinguished the specific parcel involved and the actual persons responsible for the activities complained of, grave prejudice might be occasioned to parties who had not willfully breached any Court Order.aj.He made the Affidavit in utmost good faith and with full respect to the authority and dignity of the Honourable Court.ak.What was set out hereinabove was true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. VII. The responses by the 10th Respondent 12.The 10th Respondent opposed the application through filing of a 22 Paragraphed undated Replying Affidavit sworn by DANSON NJENGA, the Principal Valuation and Taxation officer with the National Land Commission, the 10th Respondent herein. The Affiant averred:-i.He made the Affidavit in response to the Petition dated 19th October, 2022.ii.In the process of compulsorily acquiring land for purposes of the construction of the Standard Gauge Railway Phase 1, the 10th Respondent had identified two ( 2 ) parcels of land known as Land Reference Numbers MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910 for compulsory acquisition since they were falling on the designated Standard Gauge Railway.iii.However, the 10th Respondent, in the intervening period, received complaints from the County Government of Mombasa alleging that the suit properties had been unlawfully acquirediv.The 10th Respondent duly invoked its mandate under the provision of Section 14 of the National Land Commission Act and invited all the interested parties to a hearing for purposes of establishing the legality and propriety of the title to the suit properties.v.The 10th Respondent thereafter rendered a determination dated 18th December, 2015 upholding the legality and propriety of the said titles held by the Petitioners.vi.The said determination was yet to be challenged or quashed by any Court and remained valid and conclusive on the question of the legality and propriety of the titles.vii.Thereafter the 10th Respondent, acting under its lawful mandate under Part VIII of the Land Act, proceeded to gazette MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910 among other properties identified for compulsory acquisition vide Gazette Notice Number 149 of 9th January, 2015.viii.The gazettement was preceded by an elaborate exercise of due diligence in various offices such as the relevant land registry, survey office, Land Administration Department, and the Physical Planning Department to establish with certainty the ownership of the properties identified for acquisition.ix.Similarly, physical ground inspection and ground truthing was done by joint surveyors of the 10th Respondent and Kenya Railways Corporation to pick co - ordinates to ascertain the existence of the identified properties on the ground and their assigned registration numbers and units.x.For avoidance of doubt, MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910 were identified as existent and registered in favour of the Petitioners and affected by the expected construction of the Railway. Additionally, the Petitioners were identified as project-affected persons.xi.All parties interested in the gazetted properties were invited to attend an inquiry of the 10th Respondent under the provision of Section 112 of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012 to establish their compensable interests, and it was only the Petitioners who attended the said inquiries and made their claim for compensation in relation to all that parcel of land known as Land Reference numbers MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910.xii.In line with the provision of Section 113 of the Land Act, the 10th Respondent issued an award of compensation of a sum of Kenya Shillings Three Twenty Million Seven Thirty Four Thousand Two Fifty Hundred (Kshs. 329,734,250/=) for the acquisition of 6.7896 Ha of the two parcels of land known as MN/VI/909 to Chunky Limited on 21st December, 2015.xiii.The said award was duly accepted by the Petitioners on 22nd December, 2015.xiv.The compensation could not be paid to the Petitioners due to orders issued by the Honourable Court in the Civil Case “Mombasa ELC Case No. 405 of 2017”, consolidated herein.xv.On 8th November, 2017, Lady Justice L. Komingoi, then sitting in the Environment and Land Court, issued an interim order restricting and prohibiting the 10th Respondent from releasing any money towards whole or part acquisition of, among others, the two ( 2 ) parcels of land known as MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910.xvi.The said order was confirmed on 25th January, 2021 by Justice Yano, who dismissed an Application by the 10th Respondent seeking to set aside the orders of Lady Justice Komingoi.xvii.The orders were issued after the 4th and 5th Respondents moved the Court claiming ownership of the parcels of land known as MN/VI/5141, MN/VI/5154, and MN/VI/5153, which were allegedly affected by the Standard Gauge Railway and hence they were claiming compensation.xviii.The investigations by the 10th Respondent established the following in relation to the said properties:a.The said properties were created after the 10th Respondent had compulsorily acquired the said properties known as MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910.b.The said properties were overlaying and overlapping on MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910.c.The said properties were never identified nor gazetted for compulsory acquisition since they were not existent or registered at the time of compulsory acquisition for SGR.d.The survey and registration of MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910 had never been cancelled by any legal process, and in the circumstances, the subsequent survey and registration of MN/VI/5141, MN/VI/5154, and MN/VI/5153 could only be most illegalxix.He was aware that compensation could only accrue to a party once the provisions of Part VIII of the Land Act had been applied to a suit property, and in the circumstances, the 10th Respondent neither identified for acquisition nor applied the said provisions to MN/VI/5141, MN/VI/5154, and MN/VI/5153.xx.He annexed and marked as “NLC - 1” a bundle of documents in support of the averments made above.xxi.All he had deponed to hereinabove was true to the best of his knowledge, save as to matters deponed to on information and belief, the source whereof had been disclosed. VIII. Submissions 13.On 4th May, 2026 while all the parties were present in Court, they were directed to have the Notice of Motion application dated 26th March, 2026 be disposed of by way of written submissions and all the parties complied. 14.Despite of this, unfortunately at the time of penning down this Ruling, none of the parties had obliged. A ruling date was reserved on 22nd June, 2026 by the Honourable Court accordingly. However, it was eventually delivered on 29th June, 2026 accordingly. IX. Analysis and Determination 15.I have carefully read and considered the pleadings herein - the application, replies, the few cited authorities filed by the parties, the relevant provision of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the statutes. 16.In order to arrive at an informed, reasonable and just decision, the Honourable Court has condensed the subject matter into the following five ( 5 ) issues for determination:a.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 4th May, 2026 seeking to cite the Directors of the 1st and 2nd Respondents for contempt of court for willful disobedience of the Orders issued on 24th July, 2017 and subsequently preserved by consent on 13th March, 2018 and 1st April, 2019 is merited.b.Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant committal of the said Directors to civil jail or the imposition of other sanctions as the Court may deem fit.c.Whether the Applicants have established sufficient basis for the intervention of the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Mombasa Police Station, and/or other police officers to provide security and maintain peace during the enforcement of the status quo orders.d.Whether the activities complained of by the Applicants relate to the suit properties MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910, or to Plot No. MN/VI/224 as asserted by the Respondents, and whether such distinction affects the scope and enforceability of the subsisting Court Orders.e.Who will bear the costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 4th May, 2026. ISSUE No. a). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 4th May, 2026 seeking to cite the Directors of the 1st and 2nd Respondents for contempt of court for willful disobedience of the Orders issued on 24th July, 2017 and subsequently preserved by consent on 13th March, 2018 and 1st April, 2019 is merited 17.Under this sub–title, the main pith and substance here is whether the Notice of Motion application dated 4th May 2026 seeking to cite the Directors of the 1st and 2nd Respondents for contempt of court for willful disobedience of the Orders issued on 24th July, 2017 and subsequently preserved by consent on 13th March, 2018 and 1st April, 2019 respectively is merited. 18.To begin with, this Court has strongly stated time without numbers that the Constitution is not a book. It is the Supreme law of the country. Likewise, Court orders are not pieces of paper, cosmetic, proposals nor a formality. It is law and must be obeyed at all cost. There should be no defiance to Court orders. They are not issued in vain. The slide to anarchy, confusion, impunity and dictatorship starts when we do not respect the Rule of Law. Should any party feel aggrieved by a Court Order or part of it, the only available option is to come back to the same court for setting it aside or review or variation or better still prefer an appeal against it. Other it would lead to contempt of Court which has such serious and severe consequences bordering on criminality. 19.I wish to critically and exclusively deliberate the issue of contempt. Contempt is any conduct that despises the authority and dignity of the Court. The Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition defines “Contempt” as:-“The act or state of despising; conduct of being despised. Conduct that defies the authority of a court or legislature, because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice.” 20.The legal framework on contempt is anchored on the provision Section 5 of the Judicature Act, Cap. 8. That section confers jurisdiction on superior courts to punish for contempt and uphold the dignity and authority of courts. Contempt of court is essentially defiance of the authority of the court. 21.The provision of Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No 19 of 2011 provides as follows:“Any person who refuses, fails or neglects to obey an order or direction of the Court given under this Act, commits an offence, and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both.” 22.Conventionally, Courts punish contempt of court to uphold the rule of law which is the cornerstone of any democratic state like ours. In the case of:- “Econet Wireless Kenya Limited – Versus - Minister For Information and Communication of Kenya Authority [2005] eKLR”, the court stated as follows: -“It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law and order that the authority and the dignity of our courts are upheld at all times. The Court will not condone deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy away from its responsibility to deal firmly with proved contemnors. It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against whom an order is made by court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until the order is 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.” 23.Additionally, Legally speaking, contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal and require strict proof of wilful disobedience (“Mutitika – Versus - Baharini Farm Ltd [1985] KLR 229”). The Applicants have shown:a.Existence of clear Orders.b.Knowledge of the Orders by the Respondents.c.Acts of excavation contrary to the Orders. 24.In the Court of Appeal case of: “Micheal Sistu Mwaura Kamau – Versus - Director of Public Prosecutions & 4 others [2018] eKLR” the court held as follows:-“It is trite that to commit a person for contempt of court, the court must be satisfied that he has wilfully and deliberately disobeyed a court order that he was aware of…secondly, as this Court emphasized in Jihan Freighters Limited – Versus - Hardware & General Stores Limited and in AB & another – Versus - R B [2016] eKLR, 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. Lastly, 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.” 25.Similarly, in the case of “T.N Gadavarman Thiru Mulpad – Versus - Ashok Khot and anor [2005] 5 SCC”, the Supreme Court of India in emphasizing the dangers of disobeying court orders held as follows:“Disobedience of this Court’s order strikes at the very root of the rule of law on which the judicial system rests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law. Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the central pillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is to perform its duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrusted to it, the dignity and authority of the Courts have to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the very corner stone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and the civilized life in the society. That is why it is imperative and invariable that Court’s orders are to be followed and complied with.” 26.Civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal proceedings since the consequence thereof may result in deprivation of the liberty of a proven contemnor. Therefore, the standard of proof for contempt is higher than the standard of proof required in ordinary civil cases of the balance of probabilities, although the same is slightly below the standard of beyond reasonable doubt required in criminal cases. To prove contempt of a court order, an applicant ought to show that there exists terms of a court order that are clear and unambiguous; that the respondent was aware of the clear terms of the order; and that the respondent willfully disobeyed the terms of the order. 27.In the instant case, the Orders of 24th July, 2017 were explicit: restraining the Defendants from trespassing and/or carrying out excavation on the suit properties. These Orders were subsequently preserved by consent before Hon. Lady Justice Omollo on 13th March, 2018 and again on 1st April, 2019. The Respondents actively participated in those proceedings, confirming knowledge of the Orders.The Respondents’ directors were aware of the Orders, having filed applications to set them aside and participated in consents preserving them. Knowledge of the Orders is not in dispute.The Applicants have demonstrated that the Respondents had full knowledge of the Orders and were bound by them. 28.The Respondents’ argument that the Orders were vague or general cannot stand in light of their active participation in proceedings where the Orders were reaffirmed. Their conduct shows not only awareness but also acquiescence to the Orders. 29.Be that as it may, the Applicants produced a survey report dated 16th April, 2026 prepared by a Land Surveyor Mr. Edward Kiguru ostensibly showing ongoing excavation and environmental degradation on the suit properties. The Respondents have vigorously disputed the contents and authenticity of this report. Firstly, they have vehemently denied that there is any excavation taking place on the ground and even challenged the Court to conduct a Site visit with all the parties present to inspect and establish this fact. Secondly, they claim that the alleged there have only been some activities related to Plot No. MN/VI/224, lawfully transferred to Chunky Limited, and not MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910 which are the subject matter of this suit.Thirdly, they have questioned the authenticity, credibility and the competence of the report having been prepared by a Land Surveyor Mr. Edward Kiguru who is a one of the Respondents and hence a party to this suit. For that very reason, he cannot be deemed to be an Expert Witness into this matter. Indeed, they accuse him having immensely contributed to the dispute on the suit through his alleged sub – division of the suit land. Finally, they averred that their own Land Surveyor, Mr. B. C Mwanyungu vide his Survey report dated 4th June, 2026 marked as “H – 1” of the Replying Affidavit has verified that there was no excavation taking place on the land as alleged. 30.Clearly, from the very onset, there exist boundary confusion and other related legal intricacies over the suit land as pleaded by parties. These are serious issues that would require keenness and careful assessment and interrogation by Court during the full trial. However, for purposes of this application, the Court holds that it is not disputed and indeed from the record, the Land Surveyor Mr. Kiguru is the 12th Respondent in the lead file of the consolidated suit – ELC Pet. No. 1 of 2022 (Supra). Pursuant to that and I do fully concur with the assertion by Mr. Ruda and the provision of Section 48 ( 2 ) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80 that Mr. Kiguru though a very competent, knowledgeable and experienced Land Surveyor may not sustain independence, neutrality nor being bias in the given circumstances. Certainly, there will be conflict of interest from his works as an expert witness. Just as a supposition, can he be summoned to testify as an Expert Witness? Nay. Far from it. Thus, it would be a travesty of justice to rely on his report. From this assertion and based on this defence, clearly there is lack of empirical evidence to this effect. I am persuaded by legal dictum of “the burden of proof” dictated under the provision of Sections 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80. It follows that, the legal ratio herein absolves the Respondents from the allegation being in breach of the subsisting Court Orders.The Applicant ought to have proved that the Respondents have been in continued excavation despite clear Orders and which amounts to deliberate defiance. In a nutshell, the evidential proof is lacking. 31.For this reason, therefore, the Court is not satisfied that the Notice of Motion dated 26th March, 2026 is merited. Therefore, for the time being in force, I do not find the Respondents’ Directors, namely Harji Govind Ruda, Renuka H.G. Ruda, and Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand Jetha, being guilty of contempt of Court for wilful disobedience of the Orders issued on 24th July, 2017 and preserved by consent thereafter. Their conduct does not undermine the authority of the Court, violates the Applicants’ proprietary rights, and warrants sanction to uphold the rule of law. ISSUE No. b). Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant committal of the said Directors to civil jail or the imposition of other sanctions as the Court may deem fit 32.Under this sub–title, the main issue here is whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant committal of the said Directors of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to civil jail or the imposition of other sanctions as the Court may deem fit.The provision of Order 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 deals with execution of decrees. Order 22, Rule 18 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Sub-rule (1) provides thus:“Where an application for execution is made—a.more than one year after the date of the decree;…the court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him …Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than one year having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within one year from the date of the last order against the party against whom the execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence of the application being made against the legal representative of the judgment-debtor, if upon a previous application for execution against the same person the court has ordered execution to issue against him.”Whereas Sub-rule (2) reads as follows:“Nothing in sub-rule (1) shall be deemed to preclude the court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice.” 33.Section 38 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 provides:-“Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may, on the application of the decree-holder, order execution of the decree—(a)by delivery of any property specifically decreed;(b)by attachment and sale, or by sale without attachment, of any property;(c)by attachment of debts.” 34.In the case of:- “Machira T/A Machira & Co Advocates – Versus - East African Standard (No 2) [2002] KLR 63”, it was held that:“The ordinary principle is that a successful party is entitled to the fruits of his judgement or of any decision of the court giving him success at any stage. That is trite knowledge and is one of the fundamental procedural values which is acknowledged…” 35.Additionally, in the case of:- “Khaminwa – Versus - Mulama & 6 Others [2026] KEELC 211 (KLR)”, the Court reaffirmed that persistent disobedience of eviction orders constitutes contempt and warrants coercive sanctions to uphold judicial authority. 36.Suffice it to say, the Court has already found that the Applicants failed to demonstrate and proving that the Respondents trespassed and caused any excavation activities on the suit properties contrary to the Orders preserved by consent on 13th March, 2018 and 1st April, 2019, confirming knowledge and acceptance by all parties.Further, that the Respondents’ Directors permitted or undertook no excavation activities on the suit properties. Indeed, the survey report dated 16th April, 2026 by Mr. Kiguru has been challenged.There exist some boundary confusion whereby Respondents’ defence that the activities related to Plot No. MN/VI/224 does absolve them.The Respondents’ conduct is not deliberate, amounting to willful disobedience. Therefore, the Applicants have not satisfied the threshold for contempt and demonstrated sufficient grounds for coercive sanctions. 37.Guided by the provision of Article 159 ( 2 ) ( d ) of the Constitution of Kenya, the attack on the use of electronic devices such as attached photographs and not complying with the provision of Section 106A of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80 – lack of Certificate of Production is immaterial to the Court. There are more serious issues to deal with than this at the moment. 38.Be that as it may, I reiterate that the Court finds that the Applicants have not demonstrated sufficient grounds to warrant committal of the Directors of the 1st and 2nd Respondents to civil jail. ISSUE No. c). Whether the Applicants have established sufficient basis for the intervention of the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Mombasa Police Station, and/or other police officers to provide security and maintain peace during the enforcement of the status quo orders. 39.Under this sub–title, the main issue here is whether the Applicants have established sufficient basis for the intervention of the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Mombasa Police Station, and/or other police officers to provide security and maintain peace during the enforcement of the status quo orders. The Court’s authority to enlist police assistance in the enforcement of its orders is firmly grounded in both statutory provisions and judicial precedent. The provision of Section 63 (e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 empowers the Court to make such interlocutory orders as may appear to be just and convenient, including those necessary to prevent abuse of process or to secure compliance with its decrees. 40.However, the Court has already found that the Applicants have not established sufficient basis for the intervention of the Officer Commanding Station (OCS), Mombasa Police Station, and/or other police officers to provide security and maintain peace during the enforcement of the status quo orders. 41.Therefore, in the given circumstances, there will be no such directions granted by this Court at this stage. ISSUE No. d). Whether the activities complained of by the Applicants relate to the suit properties MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910, or to Plot No. MN/VI/224 as asserted by the Respondents, and whether such distinction affects the scope and enforceability of the subsisting Court Orders. 42.Under this sub–title, the main issue here is whether the activities complained of by the Applicants relate to the suit properties MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910, or to Plot No. MN/VI/224 as asserted by the Respondents, and whether such distinction affects the scope and enforceability of the subsisting Court Orders. 43.The Applicants have consistently maintained that the excavation activities complained of were carried out on the suit properties MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910, which are the subject of the Orders issued on 24th July, 2017. They rely heavily on the survey report dated 16th April, 2026 prepared by M/s. Edward Kiguru Land Surveyors, which ostensibly observed ongoing excavation, dredging of drainage channels, and environmental degradation on the suit properties.The Applicants argue that these activities were not incidental or inadvertent but deliberate, calculated to undermine the substratum of the suit. They submit that the Respondents’ actions amount to wilful disobedience of the subsisting status quo orders, thereby eroding the authority of the Court and frustrating the pending determination of ownership rights. 44.The Respondents, through the Grounds of Opposition dated 16th June, 2026 and the affidavits sworn by Harji Govid Ruda, Dinesh Kumar Zaverchand and Julius Kea Mbawa, contend that the activities complained of were undertaken on Plot No. MN/VI/224, lawfully transferred to Chunky Limited, and not on MN/VI/909 and MN/VI/910. They annexed a survey drawing marked as “JK - 3” to demonstrate that Plot No. MN/VI/224 is distinct and identifiable from the parcels claimed by the Applicants. They argue that the Applicants have deliberately failed to distinguish between the parcels, thereby creating confusion and improperly attributing lawful levelling and backfilling activities on Plot No. MN/VI/224 to the Respondents. The Respondents further submit that disputes relating to boundaries fall within the jurisdiction of the Land Registrar under the provision of Section 18 (2) of the Land Registration Act, 2012, which provides:“The Court shall not entertain any action or other proceedings relating to a dispute as to the boundaries of registered land unless the boundaries have been determined in accordance with this section.” 45.On this basis, they contend that the contempt proceedings are misplaced, as the alleged activities were outside the scope of the Orders and relate to boundary issues that should first be resolved administratively. 46.In view of the reasoning provided above, the Court notes that even if boundary disputes exist, the proper course would be to await the full trial of this matter whereby clarification or variation of the issues will be deliberated upon indepth whatsoever. ISSUE No. e). Who will bear the costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 4th May, 2026. 47.It is now well established that the issue of Costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs mean the award that is granted to a party at the conclusion of the legal action and proceedings in any litigation. The Proviso of Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya holds that Costs follow the events. By the event, it means outcome or result of any legal action. This principle encourages responsible litigation and motivates parties to pursue valid claims. See the cases of “Harun Mutwiri – Versus - Nairobi City County Government [2018] eKLR and “Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers – Versus - Bidco Africa Limited & Another [2015] eKLR, the court reaffirmed that the successful party is typically entitled to costs, unless there are compelling reasons for the court to decide otherwise. 48.I have well stated in previous precedence and most especially in “Sagalla Lodge Limited – Versus - Samwuel Mazera Mwamunga & another (Suing as the Executors of Eliud Timothy Mwamunga – Deceased) [2022] eKLR”, that:“ 58.The Black Law Dictionary defines “Cost” to means, “the expenses of litigation, prosecution or other legal transaction especially those allowed in favour of one party against the other”. The provisions of Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 holds that Costs follow events. The issue of Costs is the discretion of Courts. From this provision of the law, it means the whole circumstances and the results of the case where a party has won the case. The events in this case is that the Notice of Motion application dated 7th December, 2021 by the Plaintiff has succeeded and hence they are entitled to costs of the application and that of the Defendants dated 21st December, 2021.” 49.In the case of “Hussein Muhumed Sirat – Versus - Attorney General & Another [2017] eKLR, the court stated that costs follow the event as a well-established legal principle, and the successful party is entitled to costs unless there are other exceptional circumstances. 50.In the present matter, the Applicants have not demonstrated that the Respondents’ Directors deliberately disobeyed the Court orders issued on 24th July, 2017 and preserved by consent on 13th March, 2018 and 1st April, 2019. No special circumstances have been demonstrated to warrant a departure from the general rule that costs follow the event. Hence, the Applicants are not the successful parties in the application. 51.Nonetheless, the Court finds that it is reasonable, fair and Just each party bears its own costs whatsoever. X. Conclusion and Disposition 52.Ultimately, based on the elaborate analysis of the framed issues herein, the Honourable Court has carefully considered and weighed the conflicting parties’ interests, it finds that the Applicants have failed to establish a case against the 1st and 2nd Respondents demonstrating sufficient grounds for the citation of their Directors for contempt of Court and thus proceed to specifically order as follows:-a.That the Notice of Motion application dated 4th May, 2026 be and is hereby found to lack merit and hence it is dismissed in its entirety.b.That parties are sternly warned on any attempt on breaching Court orders as the said act of omission and commission will attract severe legal consequences whatsoever as guided by the provision of the Law.c.That should it be necessary, the Honourable Court shall conduct a Site Visit (“Locus in Quo”) pursuant to the provision of Order 18 Rule 11 and Order 40 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 to inspect and establish the situation on the ground and draw its observation.d.That unless otherwise stated, the scheduled full hearing of the matter on 24th July, 2026 through Physical means shall be retained.e.That each party to bear its own costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 4th May, 2026. IT Is So Ordered Accordingly. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAM VIRTUAL, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.………………………………….HON. MR. JUSTICE L. L. NAIKUNI,ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURTATKWALERuling delivered in the presence of:a. Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant.b. Mr. Ndegwa & Mr. Borona Advocates for the Petitioners/Respondents.c. Mr. Asige Kiverenge Advocate for the 1st & 3rd Respondents.d. Mr. Mohamed Billow Advocate holding brief for Mr. Ahmednassir Abdullahi Advocate (SC) for the 4th & 5th Respondents/Applicants.e. M/s. Kiti Advocate for the State.f. M/s. Mulago Advocate holding beirf for Mr. Otieno Advocate for the 12th Respondent.