Hi Jung Ho Children’s Home v Life Reformation Centre & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E223 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 18258 (KLR) (15 December 2025) (Ruling)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI ELCC NO. E223 OF 2022 HI JUNG HO CHILDREN’S HOME………….PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT VERSUS LIFE REFORMATION CENTRE.........................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION..................…2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL………....................….3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT SOSPETER GATHAHU MUMBI….....................4TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT ETHICS AND ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION…………………......................……..5TH DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT RULING 1. Before this court for determination is the notice of motion dated 27th August, 2025 filed by the plaintiff/applicant, and it is expressed to be brought under Sections 5 and 13 of the Contempt of Court Act, 2016, Sections 1A,1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, and Order 40 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders - 1. Spent. 2. That this honourable court be pleased to find and declare that the 1st defendant/ respondent, Life Reformation Centre and/or its trustees, 1 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 2 2 3 O F 2 0 2 2 D E L I V E R E D V I R T U A L L Y O N 1 5 T H D E C E M B E R , 2 0 2 5 . agents, servants or assigns are in contempt of the court orders issued on 10th June 2025, by Hon. Justice Charles Mbogo restraining the 1st defendant/ respondent from further development on the suit property Nairobi Block 110/686. 3. That this honourable court be pleased to issue an order committing the trustees of the 1st defendant/respondent, Life Reformation Centre, including Josphat Mungai alias Karanja, to civil jail for a period not exceeding six (6) months or such other period as the court may deem fit for contempt of court. 4. That this honourable court be pleased to issue an order compelling the 1st defendant/respondent to purge the contempt by immediately ceasing all construction, development, leasing, farming and other activities on the suit property, removing all unauthorized structures, reinstating the felled trees or compensating for environmental damage, and vacating any lessees or occupants currently residing within the suit property being Nairobi Block 110/686. 5. That in the alternative, this honourable court be pleased to impose a fine on the 1st defendant/ respondent and its trustees for 2 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 2 2 3 O F 2 0 2 2 D E L I V E R E D V I R T U A L L Y O N 1 5 T H D E C E M B E R , 2 0 2 5 . contempt of court, in such amount as the court deems just. 6. That the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) Central Station be directed to provide security and enforce the orders of this court, including overseeing the immediate cessation of all unauthorized activities on the suit property being Nairobi Block 110/686. 7. That the 1st defendant/respondent (Life Reformation Centre), its trustees, agents, servants, lessees (including Nexus Ridge School), and any other occupants be evicted forthwith from the suit property known as Nairobi Block 110/686, and the plaintiff/applicant be granted vacant possession thereof. 8. That the costs of this application be borne by the 1st defendant/respondent. 2. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of it, and further as contained in the supporting affidavit of Byum Soo Oh on behalf of the plaintiff/applicant sworn on even date. The plaintiff/applicant deposed that on 10th June, 2025, this court issued orders restraining the 1st defendant/respondent from further developments on the suit property. It was deposed that the said 3 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 2 2 3 O F 2 0 2 2 D E L I V E R E D V I R T U A L L Y O N 1 5 T H D E C E M B E R , 2 0 2 5 . orders included a penal notice warning of penal consequences for any disobedience for non-observance. The plaintiff/applicant deposed that the 1st defendant/respondent has defied the said orders by further engaging in construction of structures, cutting down trees and leasing the suit property to Nexus Ridge School which has erected a signboard and is operating thereon. 3. The plaintiff/applicant deposed that on 11th August, 2025, the 3rd defendant/respondent issued an enforcement notice declaring the said developments illegal, and that on 4th August, 2025, its advocates had written to the trustees of the 1st defendant/respondent to cease all activities and abuse, but the 2 nd defendant/respondent has failed to comply. It was deposed that the 1st defendant’s/respondent’s actions constitute a deliberate and willful disobedience of this court’s orders, and that this court has jurisdiction under Sections 5 and 13 of the Contempt of Court Act, 2016 to punish for contempt and to ensure compliance with its orders. 4. The 1st defendant/respondent filed its replying affidavit sworn on 8th October, 2025 by Chephas Njuguna Chege. The 1st defendant/respondent deposed that the instant application is part of the plaintiff’s/applicant’s law firm’s effort to have control over 4 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 2 2 3 O F 2 0 2 2 D E L I V E R E D V I R T U A L L Y O N 1 5 T H D E C E M B E R , 2 0 2 5 . the home with an intention to sell the same and render the vulnerable children destitute and homeless. Further, that no effort was made to extract the said order and effect service, as no evidence has been shown. The 1st defendant/respondent urged the court to look at the letter dated 4th August, 2025. 5. The 1st defendant/respondent further deposed that the 1st defendant’s/respondent’s actions and programs in the home are only geared towards promoting children’s dignity, protection, safety as mandated by the children’s department. Further, that all the constructions happened between March, and April, 2025 under close supervision of the late founder. 6. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The plaintiff/applicant filed its written submissions dated 6th October, 2025. The 1st defendant/respondent filed its written submissions dated 22nd October, 2025. 7. I have carefully considered the application, the replying affidavit, and the written submissions filed by the respective parties. The issue for determination is whether the plaintiff/applicant has established contempt of court orders against the 1st defendant/respondent. 5 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 2 2 3 O F 2 0 2 2 D E L I V E R E D V I R T U A L L Y O N 1 5 T H D E C E M B E R , 2 0 2 5 . 8. On 10th June 2025, this court issued orders against the 1st defendant/respondent to stop further development on the suit property pending the directions of the court that were to be issued on 20th June, 2025. This order was issued in the presence of counsel for the interested party/applicant, the plaintiff/respondent/2nd defendant, 1st defendant and 3rd defendant. It therefore follows that owing to legal representation by the parties in the virtual session on the material date, it is presumed that the 1st defendant/respondent was aware of the court’s orders. 9. However, I am constrained to pronounce myself on the instant application as argued by the plaintiff/applicant that this court has jurisdiction under Sections 5 and 13 of the Contempt of Court Act, 2016. In the case of Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General; Law Society of Kenya (Interested Party) [2018] KEHC 9656 (KLR), the High Court declared the entire Contempt of Court Act No. 46 of 2016 invalid and unconstitutional. It follows that an application for contempt brought under the provisions of the impugned Act are null and void and the court’s jurisdiction cannot be invoked in the circumstance. 10. The notice of motion dated 27th August, 2025 fails to the extent that it has been brought pursuant to an Act that has been declared 6 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 2 2 3 O F 2 0 2 2 D E L I V E R E D V I R T U A L L Y O N 1 5 T H D E C E M B E R , 2 0 2 5 . unconstitutional and the same is hereby dismissed. I make no orders as to costs. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025. HON. MBOGO C.G. JUDGE 15/12/2025. In the presence of: Mr. Benson Agunga - Court assistant Ms. Githongori holding brief for Mr. Lusiola for the Plaintiff/Applicant Mr. Onsembe holding brief for Mr. Ongegu for the 1st Defendant/Respondent Ms. Wanini for the 2nd Defendant /Respondent Ms. Ruth Kiunga holding brief for Mr. Erick Theuri for the 3rd Defendant/Respondent 7 | P a g e R U L I N G E L C C N O . E 2 2 3 O F 2 0 2 2 D E L I V E R E D V I R T U A L L Y O N 1 5 T H D E C E M B E R , 2 0 2 5 .