https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3101

Kibwambok v Rono & 2 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E016 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3101 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3101 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E016 of 2025 CK Yano, J May 21, 2026 Between Malakwen Seurei Kibwambok Applicant and Mary Kaptingei Rono 1st Respondent Elizabeth Jeptum Rono 2nd Respondent Grace Jepkering Cheruiyot 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.Vide the Notice of Motion dated 10th March, 2026, the Applicant sought the following orders:-1.Spent2.That the Honourable Court be pleased to compel the Uasin Gishu County Police Commander or police officers under his command to enforce the court orders earlier issued and extended on the 5th day of March, 2026 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter parties.3.That this Honourable Court be pleased to cite Mary Kaptingei Rono, Elizabeth Jeptum Rono and Grace Jepkering Cheruiyot, the Respondents herein and the OCS Jua Kali Police Station for Contempt in the face of the Court.4.That the Court be pleased to hear and determine the matter physically in an open court.5.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is based on the grounds that the Respondents and the OCS Jua Kali Police Station have disobeyed this Honourable Court’s orders dated 2nd October, 2025 which were extended on 5th March, 2026 until the hearing and determination of the case. That contrary to the said orders, the Respondents have evicted Applicant and occupied his portion in parcel number Uasin Gishu/Sosioni/87, and that the Applicant stands to suffer irreparable loss unless the orders sought herein are granted. 3.The application is further supported by the affidavit of Stephen Seurei Kibwambok, the Applicant, sworn on 10th March, 2026 in which the applicant deponed that on 6th March, 2026, he proceeded to prepare his land that he occupied, plant and fence it to avoid friction. That after finishing the work, the Respondent descended on the said land and maliciously destroyed his property including the planted crops. 4.The Applicant has accused the OCS Jua kali Police Station of disobeying the court’s direction and orders to keep peace and has instead taken sides. That the situation has degenerated into chaos and the Respondents have armed 5 men to patrol and occupy the land contrary to Court Orders. That the Respondents have no respect for court orders and that the Court’s reputation and authority have been undermined. He deponed that unless the court intervenes as sought herein, the orders of the court stand disobeyed. 5.The Respondents opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Grace Jepkering Cheruiyot, the 3rd Respondent who termed the application malicious, frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merit. She accused the Applicant of laches and concealment of material facts, which resulted in concealing the real issues. She claimed that the application was defective in form and substance, is strange in law and offers no known remedy in law. She averred that she and her co-Defendants had complied with the court’s orders issued on 2nd December, 2025 to each use their respective parcels of land. 6.The 3rd Respondent claims that the Applicant had filed an application dated 15/01/2026 for contempt, which they opposed vide Affidavit dated 20/01/2026 demonstrating they were ploughing their land. That the said application was dismissed for lack of merit. She denied that they had encroached, ploughed or planted on the Applicant’s portion or evicted him therefrom. On the contrary, the 3rd Respondent claims that it is the Applicant who hired goons and attempted to invade their already ploughed and planted portions of land. That they resisted and prevented the Applicant and his goons and on reporting to Jua kali Police Station, the goons fled. 7.The 3rd Respondent deponed that they planted on their land and have conducted the first round of weeding, while the Applicant has not even ploughed his own portion and it remained fallow. That they had maintained the status quo prevailing at the time the order was given, and denied destroying the Applicant’s crops. The 3rd Respondent averred that the Applicant had not disclosed the types of crops claimed to have been destroyed, or presented evidence of the said crops. 8.The 3rd Respondent claims that the Applicant’s motion falls short of the legal and evidentiary threshold to sustain the application to have them held in contempt. She averred that the application is meant to waste court’s time and engage them in endless litigation since it ignored the court’s observation on occupancy in its earlier ruling on a similar application. She averred that the application is made in bad faith and lacks merit, thus it is in the best interest of justice that it be dismissed. 9.On 27th April, 2026 the court directed that the Respondents and the OCS, Jua Kali Police Station appear in court on 14th May, 2026 to explain why they did not obey court orders. 10.On the said date, the OCS and the Respondents appeared in court in person. On that same date, Mr. Muhatia, Counsel for the Applicant relied on the supporting affidavit to the application. He submitted before this court that the Respondents have largely disobeyed the court’s orders. He urged the court to take action against them. 11.Mr. Mwaka for the Respondents submitted that the Applicant had applied for summons to the Respondents and the OCS to appear in court. Counsel explained that there was no affidavit of service filed, and that they only managed to get the application through the CTS. Counsel explained that when they discovered the application, they filed their response. He asked the court to consider the response before citing the Respondents for contempt. 12.He explained that it is the Applicant who invaded the Respondents’ land and is using goons, but when the matter was reported to the OCS, they fled. Counsel argued that there is no evidence that the Applicant’s land was ploughed. Counsel submitted that there was a previous application for contempt based on the same facts, and asserted that litigation must come to an end. Counsel argued that the Applicant cannot be allowed to plough the Respondents’ portion. He contends that the court is being asked to reverse its previous orders. Counsel further submitted that due to their seriousness nature, contempt proceedings require that rules of evidence be adhered to. 13.Mr. Kwame appearing for the OCS noted that he had not filed any papers as his clients only received summons to show cause. He submitted that they had not seen the application, however the OCS had informed him that they visited the suit land and were shown an order for parties to maintain status quo which was not defined. That the order stated that each party remain using the portion they were using, however this kept shifting. He expressed that his instructions were for the parties to be restrained and for the ownership to be determined so that thereafter, the issue can be clearly known. Mr. Kwame pointed out that OCS is not a party, and he asked that she be discharged. 14.Mr. Muhatia responded and conceded that there was a previous application for contempt which was dismissed. That in that earlier application, the Respondents had tilled the Applicant’s land. Counsel submitted that each party has known where to plough for over 20 years. Counsel acknowledged that the orders were that each party should utilise the place he has always utilised for production, and that is what his client did. 15.Counsel states that they served the application on time, but when the matter came for hearing, Mr. Mwaka was not present and the application was heard ex-parte. Counsel argued that the court ought not go back and revisit an affidavit that was filed out of time, and the same should be expunged from the court’s record. On the request to set down the mater for hearing, Counsel submitted that the alleged contemnors were present in court, and that the issue of ownership will be determined. 16.Counsel informed the court that his client went to the OCS to report, but the OCS did not take action and he had to call the OCPD and Nairobi. He asked the court to have the OCS explain what happened. In addition, Counsel submitted that the Respondents had ploughed upto the Applicant’s doorstep, thus he has nowhere to step. Counsel asked the court to proceed and determine the matter. Analysis and Determination: 17.I have considered the application, response thereto, submissions by counsel for the parties and I am of the view that he following issues are for determination herein:-i.Whether the Respondents and the OCS Jua Kali Police Station are in contempt of the orders of this court;ii.What orders should the court issue in the circumstances?iii.Who shall bear the costs of the present application? a. Whether the Respondents and the OCS Jua Kali Police Station are in contempt of the orders of this court; 18.The main issue for determination herein is whether or not the Respondents are in contempt of the orders of this court as alleged by the Applicant. The Applicant’s case is that the Respondents violated this court’s order issued on 15th May, 2025 and amended on 2nd October, 2025. The Applicant contends that the order was extended in the presence of the Respondents herein. He has, therefore, sought to cite the Respondent as well as the OCS for contempt of court and disobedience of that order. 19.The Respondents have denied violating the court order as alleged. They state that they have not ploughed the Applicant’s land as claimed. They assert that they have been abiding by the order of the court and ploughing/utilising their respective portions. The OCS on her part, claims that they received the order of status quo, however, the same was not properly defined. He claims that the parties were asked to utilise their own portions, however, it appears the boundaries keep shifting. Counsel proposed that the issue of ownership be determined once and for all. 20.The court thus needs to determine whether the Respondents and/or the OCS are in contempt of the orders of this court. The Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition, defines contempt as:“The act or state of despising; the conduct of being despised. Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court or legislature. Because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice.” 21.Contempt of court therefore, is conduct or action that defies or disrespects authority of court. A party seeking to cite another for contempt of court must establish the existence of the elements set out in Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others vs National Land Commission & 2 others (2020) eKLR, which are that:-“ 40.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. Upon proof of these requirements the presence of wilfulness and bad faith on the part of the Respondent would normally be inferred, but the Respondent could rebut this inference by contrary proof on a balance of probabilities. Perhaps the most comprehensive of the elements of civil contempt was stated by the learned authors of the book Contempt in Modern New Zealand who succinctly stated:-‘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) that:-(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’.” 22.It is well known that contempt of court proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature due to the fact that the liberty of the alleged contemnors may be affected. Therefore, before a party can be cited for contempt, it must be proved beyond peradventure, that they have actually disobeyed the court order. It is thus important that the court satisfies itself beyond any shadow of doubt that the Respondents and the OCS Jua Kali Police Station, are guilty of contempt. To do so, the court must consider whether the elements of contempt listed above have been established. 23.The first element is whether the terms of the order are clear, unambiguous and binding on the Respondents. The starting point in this regard, is that there must first be an order in existence that is binding on the Respondent. Once it is established that there is indeed an order in existence, then the court will determine whether the order is clear and unambiguous. 24.To understand how the parties got to this point, it is important to consider the background of this dispute. The Applicant commenced this suit by way of Originating Summons dated 6th May, 2025. The Applicant also filed a Notice of Motion Application dated 8th May, 2025. In that application, the Applicant sought a permanent injunction, restraining the Respondents from interfering or transacting over the land known as Uasin Gishu/Sosioni/87 (the suit property) in any way. 25.Prior to the delivery of the said Ruling, the Respondents raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May, 2025. When the matter came up on 15th May, 2025, the court issued an order that the status quo obtaining as at that date be maintained. The order as framed was to the effect that the Applicant would remain on his residence and should not be evicted. However, the Applicant was not allowed to till the land pending determination of the Respondents’ Preliminary Objection. 26.The court delivered its ruling on the PO on 2nd October, 2025. On the same date, the court amended the order of status quo to state that none of the parties should be evicted from the portion each occupies, and they were at liberty to utilise their said portions pending the determination of the application for injunction. The court delivered its ruling on 22nd January, 2026 dismissing the Applicant’s Application for injunction. 27.The matter was then fixed for mention on 9th February, 2026 for directions on the hearing on the main suit. Before the said date, the Applicant filed another application dated 15th January, 2026 asking the court to cite the Respondents as well as the OCS Jua Kali Police Station for contempt of the order of this court delivered on 2nd October, 2025. In its ruling of 5th March, 2026 the court found that the application lacked merit and dismissed it. 28.Upon dismissal of the said application for contempt, the Applicant filed the present application, also seeking to have the Respondents and the OCS Jua Kali Police Station cited for contempt of the orders issued and extended on 5th March, 2026. 29.For the sake of clarity, aside from dismissing the application for contempt, on 5th March, 2026 the other order made by this court was that:-“The matter is fixed for directions on the main cause on 26/03/2026 before the DR. Interim orders are extended.” 30.For the avoidance of doubt, the only interim orders issued by this court are the status quo orders made on 15th May, 2025 and amended on 2nd October, 2025. Notably, however, the said order as amended on 2nd October, 2025 was to persist until the determination of the application on injunction dated 8th May, 2025. The said application was determined vide the ruling on 22nd January, 2026 through which it was dismissed. 31.The interim orders being time bound and reliant on the determination of the application, therefore lapsed upon delivery of the ruling on 22nd January, 2026. The Applicant claim that the orders were extended on 5th March, 2026 until the hearing and determination of the case is therefore incorrect at best, and at worst, misleading. 32.In essence therefore, when this court made the directive that the interim orders were extended, the same was an error, made albeit inadvertently, owing to the fact that there were no interim orders in existence at the time capable of being extended. As a result, there is no order in existence capable of binding the Respondents and/or the OCS into obedience. 33.Being that there is no order in existence binding the Respondents and/or OCS, there is no need to engage in a discussion of whether the Respondents were aware of the order, or whether the Respondents had wilfully disobeyed it, amounting to contempt. Consequently, the argument that the Respondents are in contempt cannot arise since there is no order in existence capable of being contravened. b. What orders should the court issue in the circumstances? 34.Flowing from the above, the court must now consider what reliefs this court ought to issue. At prayer (1) of the Motion, the Applicant has asked this Honourable Court to compel the Uasin Gishu County Police Commander or police officers under his command to enforce the court orders earlier issued and extended on the 5th day of March, 2026 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter parties. 35.This court has already determined that the interim orders lapsed upon delivery of the ruling on 22nd January, 2026. There is thus no order in existence capable of being contravened by the Respondents and the OCS. It follows therefore, that the above relief cannot issue. 36.At prayer no. (3), the Applicant asks this Honourable Court to cite Mary Kaptingei Rono, Elizabeth Jeptum Rono and Grace Jepkering Cheruiyot, the Respondents herein and the OCS Jua Kali Police Station for Contempt in the face of the Court. There being no order in existence binding the Respondents and the OCS, the court has no reason to cite them for the alleged contempt. 37.The Applicant has further asked the Court to hear and determine the matter physically in an open court. I have noted the highly contentious nature of this dispute. The Parties have taken to filing one application after another, and as a result, the parties have not even taken direction on hearing of the main suit. 38.At the core of this dispute is the issue of ownership of the suit property. I do agree with the OCS, in her submissions made through Mr. Kwame Advocate, that there is need of determining the issue of ownership once and for all. However, the said issue can only be determined upon a full hearing of the testimonies of the parties, adducing evidence and a judgment issued thereon on the merits of the suit. 39.It is therefore prudent to ensure that the matter is fast tracked for hearing and determination of the ownership of the suit land in this case. With that in mind, I hereby direct that this matter will be placed for hearing and determination before ELC Court 3. This court shall fix a date for the matter to be mentioned before the said judge for directions on hearing. 40.In the meantime, there is need to ensure peace prevails on the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit. Notably, it is the status quo orders allowing the parties herein to make use of the suit property during the planting season that resulted in the endless applications in this suit. 41.There is therefore need to make such orders to preserve the suit property pending hearing and determination of the case, and such orders as to maintain the peace during that period. The court has authority to do so under Section 3B of the Civil procedure Act, which provides that:-3A.Saving of inherent powers of court.Nothing in this Act shall limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the court. 42.In exercise of that inherent jurisdiction, this court is compelled to issue orders restraining the Applicant herein as well as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents from utilising, ploughing, planting and/or harvesting, putting up new structures or fences or otherwise dealing with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of this suit. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties are only allowed to live in the houses and/or structures currently standing on the suit property. 43.I turn now to the issue of costs, which the Applicant has asked be provided for. Seeing as the matter is yet to be heard, the costs of this application shall be costs in the cause. Orders:- 44.The upshot is that the Applicant’s application dated 10th March, 2026 is without merit and is hereby dismissed. 45.However, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this court, the following orders hereby issue to preserve the suit property:-a.The parties herein, being the Applicant as well as the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents, are hereby restrained from utilising, ploughing, planting and/or harvesting, putting up new structures or fences or otherwise dealing with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of this suit. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties are only allowed to live in the houses and/or structures currently standing on the suit property.b.The costs of the present application shall be costs in the cause. 46.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT ELDORET ON THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026 VIDE MICROSOFT TEAMS.HON. C. K. YANOELC, JUDGEIn the virtual presence of;Mr. Mwaka for Respondents.Mr. Muhatia for Applicant.Court Assistant - Laban.