https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4809

 REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA COUNTY COURT NAME: MOMBASA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT CASE NUMBER: ELC 53/2015 DAVID KIPKIRUI KANDII, KIPROTICH KORIR VERSUS LEAH ACHIENG, ALLAN ONYANGO JOSIAH, THE KWALE DISTRICT LAND REGISTRAR AND ATTORNEY GENERAL RULING Introduction The plaintiffs came to court seeking a declaration that they are the lawful owners of the land parcel Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/410 as evidenced by the title issued on 5 February 1986. They further sought an order cancelling the certificate of lease and the entire records purporting to open a new green card over Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/410 to reflect the Is and defendants as the owners and an order directing the 3rd and 4ht defendants to restore the records over the land so as to reflect the plaintiff as owners. Moreover, they sought a permanent injunction to restrain the 1st and 2nd defendants from laying any claim of ownership and to restrain the Kwale Land Registrar, the Commissioner of Lands or any other authority from interfering with the records held in favour of the plaintiffs and restrain them from dispossessing the plaintiff of his title to the land. Lastly they sought costs of the suit. The matter was heard and came for Judgment on 26 September 2022 before Hon. Justice Munyao Sila. In presence of Mr. Ondabu for the plaintiff, Ms. Kiti for the 3rd and 4th defendants and no appearance by the 1st and 2nd defendants. The court ordered and decreed that as against the first and second defendant and or their predecessors in title, it is the plaintiffs who are the rightful proprietor of the land parcel Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/410. That the Land Registrar, Kwale was ordered to cancel and deregister any green card in favor of the first and second defendants and or their predecessors in title. That the Land Registrar, Kwale, to retain the green card displayed by the plaintiffs as the proper green card of the land parcel Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/410 and any further transactions related to the said land-be within the green card displayed by the plaintiffs. That an order of permanent injunction was issued barring the first and second defendants from entering into any dealings or interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the land comprised in the land parcel Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/410. The plaintiffs were awarded the costs as against the first and second defendant. The land registrar Kwale, instead of complying registered the decree on 18th October 2022 and on 2nd February 2023, and on the 2nd February 2023 went ahead to close the title deed on the subdivision into 21 portions and created new titles nos 1829 to 1849. THE PLAINTIFFS’ CASE The plaintiffs were aggrieved with this action and on 4th March 2026 took out a notice to show cause against the Land Registrar Kwale who is a party in these proceedings to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt. In a nutshell the plaintiff submits on the Notice to Show Cause dated 4th March 2026 that the issue before this Honourable Court is not whether the decree herein was registered, but whether the decree was fully and faithfully implemented in accordance with its terms. The decree arising from the Judgment of this Honourable Court and registered on 18th October 2022 in the green card presented by the Land Registrar declared the Plaintiffs as the lawful proprietors of Land Parcel No. KWALE/GALU/KINONDO/410 and directed that the land register be adjusted to conform to the decree. As a matter of land registration procedure, where a court orders cancellation of an existing title and vests ownership in another party, the Land Registrar is required to: 1. Enter the decree and the consequential cancellation of the previous proprietor’s title in the register; 2. Register the successful litigant as proprietor; 3. Issue a title deed in favour of the successful litigant; and 4. Thereafter record any subsequent dealings affecting the parcel. In the present case, although the Land Registrar entered the decree and recorded the cancellation of the Defendants’ title, the Registrar failed to complete the registration process by registering and issuing a title deed to the Plaintiffs as directed by the decree. Instead, the register in the green card reflects an entry indicating that the title deed was closed upon subdivision on 2nd February 2023 despite there being no preceding entry showing that a title deed had ever been issued to the Plaintiffs following registration of the decree on 18th October 2022. The effect of that omission is that the Plaintiffs, despite having obtained a Judgment and decree declaring them proprietors of the suit property, were never vested with the legal title contemplated by the Court’s decree. The register as presently constituted does not comply with the decree of this Honourable Court because it shows cancellation of the Defendants’ title but does not show registration of the Plaintiffs as proprietors through issuance of a title deed before recording subsequent transactions. The entry made on 2nd February 2023 indicating that the title deed was closed upon subdivision is fundamentally inconsistent with both the decree of the Court and the state of the register. Upon cancellation of the Defendants’ title pursuant to the decree registered on 18th October 2022, the next consequential entry ought to have been the registration of the Plaintiffs as proprietors and issuance of a title deed in their favour. It is only after such registration and issuance of title that any subsequent dealings, including subdivision, could lawfully be undertaken and reflected in the register. In effect, the register purports to show closure of a title deed that had never been issued to the Plaintiffs in the first place. The entry indicating that the title was closed upon subdivision therefore presupposes the existence of a title in favour of the Plaintiffs, yet no such entry exists in the register exists and no title deed issued in respect of the said Court Order. The omission renders the register internally inconsistent and demonstrates that the decree was never fully implemented. The failure to first register the Plaintiffs as proprietors and issue them with a title deed deprived them of the proprietary rights expressly conferred by the Judgment and decree of this Honourable Court and frustrated the intended effect of the Court’s orders. There is a Court Order BUT no title deed issued. The Plaintiffs submits that the omission was not a mere administrative error. It had the effect of delaying, frustrating and defeating the implementation of the decree and denying the Plaintiffs the fruits of their Judgment. The Plaintiffs respectfully submit that compliance with the decree could only be achieved by registering them as proprietors and issuing a title deed in their favour before any subsequent transactions affecting the parcel were undertaken or entered in the register. No title has been issued pursuant to the Judgment and Decree of this court. The Decree holder further submits that the Attorney General had attended court in previous appearances and informed the Court that the Land Registrar will comply but there has not been complied to-date. The Court Record for the 23rd day of October 2025 and 5th December 2025 can attest to that. Despite commitment to comply, the Land Registrar has not complied four years since the decree was issued by this Honourable Court. The deliberate refusal to comply with the Court Order as per the Green Card that was displayed to Hon Mr Justice Munyao Sila, and was produced as an exhibit in the matter is legendary. The Green Card attached to Susan Mueni’s Replying Affidavit shows Entry No 1 as Leah Achieng Josiah and Allan Onyango Josiah while the Green Card displayed to Hon Mr Justice Munyao Sila and which is on record shows Entry No 5 as Kiprotich Korir and David K. Kandie and does not have any entries for the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Susan Mueni has deliberately refused to use the Green Card which was displayed to the Presiding Judge and which the court directed to be adopted notwithstanding the fact that it is on record and it is the Green Card that the Learned Judge upheld as the proper Green Card. The applicant contends that the entries in the green card that the land Registrar decided to use are inconsistent. No entry for title deed issued after the entry of the decree in this matter before subsequent entries are made unlike the entries following the registration of the decree in the Judicial Review matter in favor of the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The Title Deed is to be issued in the name of Kiprotich Korir and David Kandie and any further entries be made in the displayed Green Card. All the Land Registrar did was to make an entry ‘of closed on subdivision’. This Court is not powerless. It cannot issue a Decree and then fail to enforce it. The Decree Holders have a right to enjoy the fruits of their judgment and not to be held at ransom by a rogue Land Registrar. The register purports to close on subdivision a title deed that was never issued. The Plaintiffs rely on the case of Koech & another (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Kipkereng Arap Koech - Deceased) v Kipkurere & another [2023] KEELC 21370 (KLR) where Justice A. Ombwayo held as follows:- “17. It is an established principle of law That in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove (i) the terms of the order, (ii) Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent, (iii). Failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order.” Similarly in Onditi & another v Nyaruri & 3 others [2023] KEELC 21032 (KLR) Hon. Justice Ombwayo coited with approval the case of North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v. Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi (2016) as follows:- “18. In the case of North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v. Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi (2016) eKLR Justice Mativo stated as follows: ' writing on proving the elements of civil contempt, learned authors of the book Contempt in Modern New Zealand have authoritatively stated as follows:-“there are essentially four elements that must be proved to make the case for civil contempt. The applicant must prove to the required standard (in civil contempt cases which is higher than civil cases - (a) the terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the defendant; (b) the defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order; (c) the defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and (d) the defendant's conduct was deliberate.” The Applicants have proved the terms of the Order, Knowledge of the order (as admitted by the contemnor) and the failure of the contemnor to comply with the order and the Honourable Court is left with one inevitable conclusion that the Land Registrar is in contempt. This Honourable Court has power to punish for contempt as held in the Court of Appeal case of Mwangi H.C. Wangondu vs Nairobi City Commission (Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1998) and the Court should therefore exercise its power to punish the contemnor. The plaintiffs rely on the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR swhere the court held that: “A court without contempt power is not a court. The contempt power (both in its civil and criminal form) is so innate in the concept of jurisdictional authority That a court That could not secure compliance with its own judgments and orders is a contradiction in terms, an “oxymoron.” Contempt power is something regarded as intrinsic to the notion of court; even obvious, I would say. In the common lawyer’s eye, the power of contempt “is inherent in courts, and automatically exists by its very nature.” In the case of Koech and Another Versus Kipkurere and anor (above) Justice Ombwayo having been satisfied that there was contempt, held the Contemnor liable for contempt as follows:- 25. In the result, I find that the Applicants’ application dated 12th July, 2023 succeeds and I issue the following orders: 1. That the 1st and 2nd Contemnors are guilty of disobeying this Court’s orders dated 17th November, 2022 and subsequently are held in contempt. 2. That the 1st and 2nd Contemnor to pay a total fine of Kenya Shillings One Hundred Thousand as a penalty for being in Contempt of Court by willfully disobeying the orders of this court issued on 17th November, 2022 or being imprisoned in jail for a term of one month and forthwith purge its contempt within thirty (30) days from the date hereof. 3. Costs of the Application to be borne by the Contemnors. The plaintiffs argue that this is a clear case of contempt of Court, and the Court should not shy away from citing the contemnor who has no regard for Court Orders, and due process of law. It is a case of impunity which erodes the dignity, and honour of the Court. Failure to comply with the Court order from 2022 to 2026 is complete, and open disrespect for the Court and the Plaintiffs pray that the Court is persuaded by its determination in Onditi & another v Nyaruri & 3 others [2023] KEELC 21032 (KLR) “1. The contention by the 1st Defendant in his grounds of opposition that the affidavit sworn by the Plaintiff is defective is rather irrelevant to the issue of whether the court orders were disobeyed or not. He has blatantly failed to address the issue of whether he breached the court orders or not. 1. In view of the foregoing, this court has established that the 1st Defendant is in breach of the court orders issued on 18th November, 2020 since he proceeded to evict the Plaintiff from the main house in the suit property. 2. In the upshot, this court finds the 1st Defendant in breach of the said orders and hereby order as follows: 3. 1.That the 1st Defendant be committed to civil jail for a period of 30 days for contempt of court or in the alternative to pay a fine of Two Hundred Thousand Kenya Shillings (Kshs. 200,000) 4. 2.That warrants of arrest be issued to the 1st Defendant. 5. 3.The costs of this application be borne by the 1st Defendant.” The Contemnor’s Replying Affidavit having failed to show compliance with the court orders, the Honourable Court ought to punish the contemnors and grant the orders sought. The Honourable Court should take notice that the Contemnor admits in its Replying Affidavits the numerous efforts and follow ups by the Applicants requesting the Land Registrar to comply with court orders. This Court has a duty to uphold the Rule of law and to promote compliance with Court orders as No one is above the law, not ven the Land Registrar, and Justice Ombwayo in the case of Oketch & 2 others v Charles; Odhiambo (Interested Party) [2023] KEELC 93 (KLR) demonstrated the same by holding the Land Registrar in contempt upon proof of willful disobedience with court orders at paragraph 27 of its ruling as follows: 27.This is a case of clear contempt of court. I do order that the respondent be jailed for a term of 6 months. In the alternative the respondent to pay a fine of Kshs 500,000/=. Moreover, the respondent to purge the contempt within a period of 3 months by transferring land parcel No Kisumu/Kadero Got Nyabondo /2051 to the 3rd applicant, Samson Okoth Abwogo as ordered by the court on April 30, 2018 within. Failure by the respondent to comply, I do direct the County Land Registrar, Kisumu to cancel the entries made in the register of Land Parcel No Kisumu/Kadero Got Nyabondo/2051 on November 1, 2019 and to register the said parcel of land the name of Samson Okoth Abwogo in terms of the orders made on April 30, 2018 and January 18, 2021. Costs of the application to the applicant. Orders accordingly. Dealing with the question of contempt in Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & another [2005] KLR 828, Ibrahim, J (as he then was), underscored the importance of obeying court orders, stating: 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. (Emphasis) Further in TN Gadavarman Thiru Mulpad v Ashok Khot And Anor [2006] 5 SCC, the Supreme Court of India also emphasized on the dangers of disobeying Court orders, thus: 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. In the circumstances, it is imperative and invariable that court orders are followed and complied with and the Plaintiffs pray that this Honourable Court finds that the decree has not been implemented as required under the law, the Land Registrar is in contempt of Court and commits the Land Registrar to civil jail for willful disobedience of lawful orders. 3RD AND 4TH DEFENDANTS REPLY Susan Mueni one of the Land Registrars Kwale raises objections to her name being quoted in the said Show cause notice, as she was never personally served with the court order of 17th October 2022. The same was booked for registration at the registry on 18th October 2022 and registered on the same day by Registrar in Charge of the station one W. M Muigai. The cancellation and deregistration of the 1st and 2nd Defendants entries was done and the property reinstated to the Plaintiffs. That the said property had already been subdivided into 20 portions by the Plaintiff's in 2011 even before the commencement of the suit. The resultant subdivisions are KWALE/GALU KINOND/1829-1849. That this information was never disclosed during the hearing in the current case and the owners were never party to the said proceedings. The above mentioned subdivisions had originally been done by the Plaintiffs on 15th April 2011. However, on 20th March 2015 the 1st and 2nd Defendants applied for reversion of the subdivisions to the original number, KWALE/GALU KINONDO/410 through a mutation form at the survey office. That after the conclusion of the case, on 2nd February 2023 the Plaintiffs served the court order to the survey department for re-charting of the new numbers meaning that the subdivision of 15th April 2011 were upheld. When the re-charting was done the Plaintiffs were aware of the same as they are the ones who applied for the subdivisions to be reinstated as per the prayers sought in the order, (b). The court did not order for the cancellation of the subdivisions of parcels no. 1829 to 1849 as the owners were never party to the proceedings. The Plaintiffs are adamant that they cancel the said subdivisions and titles for the 3rd parties which will amount to an illegality and expose our office to litigation. The request by the Plaintiffs to reinstate the suit property to KWALE/GALU KINONDO/410 does not emanate from the court order. The Plaintiff to make an application for compliance with an order that has already been complied with is an afterthought and a waste of judicial time. The 3rd and 4th defendant's submit that the Plaintiff's cannot have their cake and eat it too,” these were the words of the court when the matter proceeded for hearing before court on 14th April 2026. The Plaintiffs on 15th April 2011 subdivided the suit property known as KWALE/GALU KINONDO/410 into 20 parcels resulting into KWALE/GALU KINONDO/1829 to 1849 as shown in the Replying Affidavit dated 12th March 2026 in paragraph 5. The Plaintiffs sold some parcels of the subdivisions and kept only 2 parcels to themselves in their own names. On 20th March 2015, the 1st and the 2nd Defendant's applied for cancellation/revision of the plaintiffs’ subdivisions and reinstatement of the original number KWALE/GALU KINONDO/410 through a mutation form marked as SM-3. Based on that, the 1st and 2nd Plaintiff's filed this suit challenging the ownership of the 1st and 2nd Defendant's. The court agreed with the Plaintiffs and a judgment was entered in their favour, consequently, on 17th October 2022 a decree was issued to return the Plaintiffs to the original place before the filing of the suit. The Plaintiffs served the court order to the Survey department on 2nd February 2023, leading to recharting of the new numbers, to wit, the subdivisions of 15th April 2011 were upheld. The Plaintiffs then presented the court order to the 3rd Defendant insisting that he should be given the whole KWALE/GALU KINONDO/410 as it was before subdivision, which was not possible as the same does not exist in the RIM after subdivision. The 3rd Defendants registered the court order in their records and registered the same in the green card of KWALE/GALU KINONDO/410 in entry number 5 and proceeded to close the green card as the subdivisions of the suit property of 2011 by the Plaintiffs were upheld. This was in line the order which ordered for the land registrar to maintain the records of the Plaintiffs together with any further transactions related to the suit property, thus according to the 3rd Defendant it had fully complied with the order of the court. However, the Plaintiff's have brought this Notice to Show Cause, insisting that the 3rd Defendant and in specific, the Land Registrar, Susan Mueni for failure to issue them with the title for the mother title. Based on the above, the court has to consider the following issues namely whether the Land Registrar is in contempt of the court orders of 17th October 2022. Who should bear the costs of this application? On whether the Land Registrar is in contempt of the court orders of 17th October 2022, the land registrar contends that it is trite law that for contempt proceedings to be successful, then the proof has to be beyond proof of probability and close to but not as exactly beyond reasonable down. The same was held in the case of Gatharia K. Mutikika vs Baharini Farm Ltd [1985] KLR 227, which held:- “The breach for which the alleged contemnor is cited must be precisely defined... it must be satisfactorily proved... higher than proof on a balance of probabilities, almost, but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt”. It is upon the applicant to prove their claim beyond balance of probability, with the evidence that was led in court, is it possible that the Plaintiff's advocate proved their case close to reasonable doubt? The answer is no. To prove contempt against court orders, the applicant is required to prove the four essentials of “clear terms of the order, knowledge of those terms, failure to comply, and deliberate action,” the same was held in the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR, in which the court outlines the four essential elements of contempt as: 1. clear terms of the order, 2. knowledge of those terms, 3. failure to comply, 4. and deliberate action. The order specifically and directly ordered the Land registrar in paragraph (b) to cancel and deregister any green card in favor of the 1st and 2nd defendant, the same was done by the registrar and it is evident in entry 5 of the Green card. Under Paragraph (c) of the order, the Land registrar was ordered to retain the green card displayed by the plaintiffs as the proper card. The plaintiffs have confirmed to the court that they have not displayed any green card to the Land registrar, an obligation on their part they have not met and so they are left to work with the green card in the custody of the land registrar. The biggest question is where are the Plaintiff's going to get another green card to display to the land registrar who is the maker and custodian of the green cards. Paragraph (c) of the court Order does not order for the cancellation of the subdivisions in favour of the Plaintiffs, rather it directed to upholds the further transactions by the plaintiffs which are the subdivisions and the transfers thereof. If it was the order of the court to cancel and deregister the subdivisions as purported by the plaintiffs then Paragraph (c) of the order would state that expressly as was done in Paragraph (b) of the order, hence the essential elements of clear terms of the order for cancellation of the subdivisions was not met. The land Registrar submits that the Advocate for the Plaintiff failed to prove the four essential against the Land registrar, to begin with the 3rd Defendant complied according to the court orders and registered the court order in the green card of KWALE/GALU KINONDO/410 and proceeded to close the same as the same was not in existence as explained earlier. Since they had already been subdivided and sold. The advocate for the plaintiffs stated that he has no issues with the people who bought the subdivisions of the suit property, but he is insisting for their titles to be cancelled without a court order for that. The Advocate for the Plaintiffs has not challenged their titles as forgeries neither has he denied that his clients sold the subdivisions to third parties who have never been part of the suit before court, yet he wants their titles cancelled and his clients given the mother title, it is clear that the advocate for the plaintiffs has a mischievous intention and is using the contempt application to achieve it. The Plaintiff only filed the contempt proceedings because he did not like the outcome of implementation of the court order of 17th October 2022, which restored the Plaintiffs to their original position of 2011. The land Registar submits that the 3rd Defendant complied fully with the court orders and to the extent that they could. The parcel suit KWALE/GALU KINONDO/410 which was subdivided into 20 parcels by the Plaintiffs and some parcels sold, thus in the RIM the property known as Kwale/Galu Kinondo/410 does not exist. The Plaintiff's N.T.S.C has no option but to fall flat and be dismissed by the Honourable court with costs. ANALYISIS AND DETERMINATION I have considered this matter after discerning the facts in the replying affidavit and the grounds in the rival submissions and do find that the decree is very clear and un–ambiguous. The matter was heard and came for Judgment on 26 September 2022 before Hon. Justice Munyao Sila. In presence of Mr. Ondabu for the plaintiff, Ms. Kiti for the 3rd and 4th defendants and no appearance by the 1st and 2nd defendants. This court ordered and decreed that as against the first and second defendant and or their predecessors in title, it is the plaintiffs who are the rightful proprietor of the land parcel Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/410. The Land Registrar, Kwale was ordered to cancel and deregister any green card in favor of the first and second defendants and or their predecessors in title. The Land Registrar, Kwale, was to retain the green card displayed by the plaintiffs as the proper green card of the land parcel Kwale/Galu/Kinondo/410 and any further transactions related to the said land-be within the green card displayed by the plaintiffs. Contrary to these orders, the land registrar ahead to close the title deed on the subdivision into 21 portions and created new titles nos 1829 to 1849. This was not ordered by the court.. The land registrar is an advocate of the High Court of Kenya who should not consider the interests of other persons not in court to defeat a court order. The action taken by the Land Registrar was as if the decree never existed. The land registrar appeared to be holding brief for persons who were not in court and were beneficiaries of the alleged subdivisions in 2011. She registered their interests to make the decree worthless. If not satisfied with the order made in 2022, the land registrar should have applied for review or appealed to the Court of Appeal instead of treating it with contempt. in Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & another [2005] KLR 828, Ibrahim, J (as he then was and God rest his soul in eternal peace), underscored the importance of obeying court orders, stating: 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. (Emphasis) I have had the opportunity to read and discern TN Gadavarman Thiru Mulpad v Ashok Khot And Anor [2006] 5 SCC, where the Supreme Court of India also emphasized on the dangers of disobeying Court orders, thus: 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. The upshot of the above is that the Land Registrar Kwale, Susan Mweni is hereby found in contempt of court and is sentenced to 6 months in jail. In the alternative, the land registrar to pay a fine of Ksh 250,000. The land registrar to purge the contempt by revoking entry no 6 entered on the 2nd February 2023 in the Register of the suit property SIGNED BY/FOR: **★ TH E JUDICIAR Y O F KENY A ★** **HON. JUSTICE ANTONY O. OMBWAYO** Mombasa Environment and Land Court Environment and Land Court Date: 2026-07-28 11:09:51