https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3224

Meadow Oaks Limited & another v Ulinzi Limited & 11 others (Environment and Land Case E021 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3224 (KLR) (5 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3224 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kwale Environment and Land Case E021 of 2025 LL Naikuni, J May 5, 2026 Between Meadow Oaks Limited 1st Plaintiff Ashminder Kaur 2nd Plaintiff and Ulinzi Limited 1st Defendant Lisbeth Sommes 2nd Defendant Carini Damgaard (Executors of the Estate of the Deceased) 3rd Defendant Fintan Damgaard 4th Defendant Karina Arum 5th Defendant Stella Nyabuti 6th Defendant Leah Wanjiku 7th Defendant Skyes & Colobus Limited 8th Defendant and Director of Criminal Investigations 1st Interested Party Kwale Water and Sewage Company 2nd Interested Party Attorney General of Kenya 3rd Interested Party Kenya National Human Rights Commission 4th Interested Party Ruling I. Introduction 1.Before this Honourable Court for determination are numerous applications, responses and Preliminary Objections which form the procedural history of this matter. Certainly, that has contributed to the ruling being so lengthy. It is instructive to note that the Plaintiffs/Applicants have filed the following applications:a.Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025 – seeking injunctive relief and reconnection of amenities.b.Application dated 21st March, 2025 – contempt application following alleged assault and obstruction.c.Application dated 19th May, 2025 – contempt application citing continued breaches of court orders.d.Application dated 15th July, 2025 – contempt application concerning illegal construction and interference with water supply.e.Application dated 12th September, 2025 – seeking urgent restraining orders against the 6th and 7th Defendants and their employee, Habakuk Onyango Opande, prohibiting interference with water supply and access to LR KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783, together with citations for contempt of the Court’s earlier orders of 11th March, 2025, 21st March, 2025, and 24th July, 2025.f.Application dated 16th October, 2025 – seeking rectification of clerical error in the order of 11th March, 2025.g.Application dated 11th February, 2026 – contempt and restoration application concerning high walls and interference with water supply.h.Application dated 11th February, 2026 – site visit application requesting judicial inspection of the property. 2.Upon service of the Application, the Defendants/Respondents while opposing the Plaintiffs’ applications, did so through the following responses:-a.Replying Affidavit sworn by Elizabeth Sommes on 14th May 2025 – opposing the Plaintiffs’ application of 18th February 2025.b.Replying Affidavit sworn by Elizabeth Sommes on 16th June 2025 – responding to the contempt application of 21st March 2025.c.Replying Affidavit sworn by Elizabeth Sommes on 20th August 2025 – responding to the contempt application of 15th July 2025.d.Further Affidavit sworn by Counsel James Owino on 28th October 2025 – responding to the Plaintiffs’ further replying affidavit of 16th October 2025. 3.In rebuttal, the 2nd Plaintiff filed a Further Affidavit dated 16th October 2025 together with submissions of even date, asserting service of all orders, the binding effect of the order of 11th March, 2025 notwithstanding clerical error, and continued interference with her water supply as evidence of willful contempt. 4.The parties have also filed Notices of Preliminary Objection as follows:a.Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May 2025 – filed by the Defendants, contending that the suit is statute‑barred under the provision of Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22.b.Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th July 2025 – filed by the Plaintiffs, objecting to the Defendants’ affidavits as defective under the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 15. II. The Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025 5.The Application was brought under the provision of Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, and Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya. 6.The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought the following orders: -a.Spent.b.That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents, their agents, servants, or employees from interfering with the Plaintiffs’ quiet possession, use, and enjoyment of LR KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783, including disconnection of water supply, blocking of access, or harassment of tenants pending the hearing and determination of this suit.c.That the Defendants/Respondents be compelled to reconnect and restore water supply and amenities unlawfully disconnected from the Plaintiffs’ premises.d.That the costs of this application be provided for. 7.The Application was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts on the face of the application and further supported by the annexed affidavit of ASHMINDER KAUR, the 2nd Plaintiff, sworn on even day, wherein she averred as follows that:-a.The Plaintiffs are the lawful lessees and occupants of LR KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783, having acquired valid leasehold rights and invested substantial resources in developing the property.b.The Defendants, without colour of right, unlawfully disconnected the Plaintiffs’ water supply and obstructed tenants’ access to the premises, thereby occasioning hardship, loss of rental income, and violation of constitutional rights to property and human dignity.c.The Defendants’ actions were calculated to intimidate and force the Plaintiffs out of the property, notwithstanding subsisting lease agreements and ongoing litigation.d.The Plaintiffs’ tenants, including families and businesses, have suffered inconvenience and health risks due to lack of water, which is a basic necessity protected under Article 43 of the Constitution.e.Unless restrained by this Honourable Court, the Defendants would continue their unlawful interference, thereby rendering the Plaintiffs’ suit nugatory and occasioning irreparable harm that could not be compensated by damages.f.The Plaintiffs had demonstrated a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, and the balance of convenience tilts in favour of preserving the status quo to protect their proprietary and tenancy rights.g.The Plaintiffs were advised by their advocates on record, whose advice they verily believed to be true, that this Honourable Court had inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to grant the injunctive relief sought to prevent abuse of process and uphold the dignity of judicial authority.h.It is in the interests of justice that the orders sought be granted, as no prejudice would be occasioned to the Defendants if they were restrained from unlawful acts, whereas the Plaintiffs stood to suffer irreparable harm if the application was not allowed. III. The Response to the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025 8.The Defendants/Respondents opposed the Plaintiffs’ application through Replying Affidavits sworn by Elizabeth Sommes on 14th May, 2025, together with Grounds of Opposition filed contemporaneously. 9.The 1st to 8th Defendants/Respondents sought dismissal of the application and raised the following key grounds in the Grounds of Opposition:i.This suit was previously litigated in MCELC E013 OF 2024 before the Kwale Chief Magistrate’s Court.ii.The Aforementioned suit was filed by the 2nd Plaintiff against the 1st to 3rd Defendants herein.iii.In that suit, the 1st to 3rd Defendants raised a preliminary objection on the grounds that the claim was time – barred under the Limitation of Actions Act.iv.Shortly before the Court could render its ruling on the said preliminary objection, the 2nd Plaintiff opted to withdraw the suit and filed this present suit.v.Aware that her claim was time barred and that she lacked any evidence of payment of the service charge, the 2nd Plaintiff dragged the 1st Plaintiff in the present suit. This was a deliberate attempt to rely on the 1st Plaintiff’s service charge payment receipts to obscure her own breach of the Lease Agreement.vi.A plain reading of the Plaint revealed that the 1st Plaintiff had no legitimate claim against the Defendants.vii.Therefore, it was evident that the 2nd Plaintiff had repacked her previously time barred contractual claim as a constitutional rights’ violation in an attempt to evade the statutory limitation period.viii.Such an abuse of legal process should not be entertained by this Honourable Court.ix.There was no legal basis upon which the application and the main suit can be granted against the 1st to 8th Defendants herein.x.The Application together with the main suit were an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. 10.In further opposition, the Defendants/Respondents filed an 29th paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn by Elizabeth Sommes, Director and Shareholder of the 1st Defendant and the lawful representative of the Defendants/Respondents on 14th May, 2025 where she reiterated as follows:-a.She had read the Applicants’ Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025, understood and where necessary the same had been explained to him by his Advocates on record and she wished to respond as follows:-b.She was informed by her Advocates on record which information she verily believed to be true that the Applicants sought the following orders:-a.A temporary injunction against the Defendants, restricting the Defendants from interfering with the Applicants’ exclusive, peaceful, quiet possession and access to the common areas, shaded parking, amenities and services common to all owners.b.An order for reconnection of disconnected amenities.c.A permanent injunction against the Defendants restricting the Defendants from interfering with the Applicants’ exclusive, peaceful, quiet possession and access to the common areas, shaded parking, amenities and services common to all owners.c.The Applicants had not presented a prima facie case with a probability of success.d.The present claim was in substance, a claim for breach of contract, improperly framed as a claim for violation of the Applicants’ constitutional rights in an attempt to circumvent time limitations as provided for under the provision of Section 4 (a) of the Limitations of Actions Act and the Respondents have raised a preliminary objection thereof.e.The Respondents had also filed grounds of opposition stopping the 2nd Applicant from filing frivolous and vexatious claims in the Honourable Courts in a bid to waste the Courts’ and parties’ time.f.The Applicants were members of a residential development. As lessees, they were contractually bound by the terms of the lease dated 15th November, 2016 to contribute to the maintenance of common areas and shared amenities through the payment of service charge and utility bills.g.The 1st Plaintiff’s access to common areas had never been restricted and neither had amenities been disconnected.h.The 2nd Applicant had failed and/ or neglected to pay service charge and utility bills leading the same to accumulate to over Kenya Shillings Five Thousand (Kshs. 500,000/-) and still continued to enjoy access to common areas at the expense of the other lessees and the management company who had to shoulder the additional expenses.i.It was noteworthy that all the other lessees and/ or tenants within the development had consistently complied with their obligations under the lease by paying service charge. None of them had approached this Honourable Court seeking the remedies the Plaintiffs now claim.j.There had never been any complaint between the 1st Applicant herein, to his understanding, the 1st Plaintiff was only dragged in this suit so as to make a case as the 1st Applicant had met its obligations and paid the service charge to date.k.The Plaintiffs’ entitlement to access common areas and utilities was not absolute but was expressly contingent upon their fulfilment of contractual obligations, particularly the payment of service charge as stipulated in the lease agreement.l.Consequently, the Respondents had no obligation, whether contractual or otherwise to provide access to common areas and utilities to the 1st Plaintiff free of charge, especially in light of the 2nd Applicant’s continued default.m.The 2nd Plaintiff had at all material times been aware of her obligation to pay service charge, she would have been entitled to receive services from the Respondents, including uninterrupted access to the common areas and the amenities she now alleges to have been disconnected.n.By opting not to abide by the terms of the lease agreement, the 2nd Plaintiff had driven herself out of the right to get common services including water, electricity and access to common areas.o.Without prejudice to the foregoing, the 2nd Plaintiff was at liberty to source water through alternative private means. The Respondents, on their part, remain ready and willing to reconnect the said amenities upon the 2nd Plaintiff’s compliance with the Lease Agreement, specifically upon full settlement of the outstanding service charge and other expenses involved.p.The Plaintiffs had not demonstrated any risk of suffering irreparable harm. The 1st Plaintiff’s access to common areas and utilities had never been curtailed and the 2nd Plaintiff continued to access the common areas notwithstanding her failure to pay service charge, an arrangement that unjustly burdens the other contributing lessees.q.In any event, any alleged loss that may be suffered by the Plaintiffs is not irreparable. The 2nd Plaintiff’s access to amenities can be promptly restored upon compliance, and any inconvenience suffered in the interim was compensable by an award of damages should the Court find in her favour.r.The 2nd Plaintiff was seeking equitable relief and yet she did not come with clean hands.s.The Plaintiffs’ had not proved the thresholds for grant of injunction as since the year 2016, there had never been any irreparable losses suffered while she, after failing and/ or refusing to pay for the service charge and other expenses was benefiting from other Lessees’ contributions.t.In addition, since the 2nd Applicant came to be known by the Respondents, the 2nd Applicant had continually harassed and threatened the Respondents verbally, with letters, emails and also in and out of police stations with no apparent reason whatsoever.u.Further to the above, as soon as this Honourable Court issued orders on the 11th day of March, 2025 that the status quo be maintained, the 2nd Applicant rushed to Diani Police Station and reported malicious damage on the 19th day of March, 2025.v.As a result of the above harassment and threats, the Respondents were now having any privacy in their unit including the sleeping quarters when the 2nd Applicants erected her house illegally that was way over and above the Respondents’ fence without any licence from the relevant authorities.w.The 2nd Applicant had also fenced the public garden in from of her cottage, thereby encroaching the whole area without consent of the Lessors and/ or the Licence from the relevant authorities.x.In support of the averments contained in this Replying Affidavit, the Respondents had filed the list of bundles of the documents to be relied on entirely throughout the hearing and determined of this case.y.The Affiant prayed to this Honourable Court that it was in the best interest of justice and overriding objective principle that the Plaintiffs’ Application dated the 18th day of February, 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Respondents. IV. The Notice of Motion application dated 21st March, 2025 11.The Application was brought under the provision Sections 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 21), Order 40 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, and all other enabling provisions of the law. 12.The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought the following orders:a.Spent.b.The Respondents herein be cited for contempt of this Honourable Court following its willful disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court issue on 11th March, 2025 in this matter.c.The Respondents grant access to common areas, shaded parking, amenities and services common to all property owners and immediately remove all present obstructions to the same.d.An order directing an Officer at the DCI in Kwale County to supervise Order 2 and 3 above.e.A temporary injunction and/ or permanent injunction prohibiting the 7th Respondent who is a key instigator of violence, abuse, criminal acts and harassment of the Plaintiff’s and who has 3 previous OB’s made against them and the 8th Respondent’s employee Habakuk Opande from any access to Title Number KWALE/ DIANI BEACH/783 pending a hearing of the matter by this Honourable Court as this is essential to any prospect of quiet enjoyment, safety and security of the Plaintiffs with regard also to the protection provisions cited in the Prevention of Torture Act.f.An order restraining the Defendants, their families, employees, proxies or any other person connected to them from speaking to, harassing or approaching the Plaintiffs, their staff, assets, guests or property.g.Costs of this application be provided. 13.The Application was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts, and further supported by the 35 Paragraphed annexed affidavit of ASHMINDER KAUR, the 2nd Plaintiff, sworn on the same day, wherein it was averred that: -i.She was the Petitioner herein and was conversant with the facts of the case hence competent to make the Affidavit.ii.She was aware that on 11th March, 2024, the Honourable Court issued an order that status quo be maintained of property TITLE NUMBER KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783. (Attached and marked as “AK – 1” was a copy of the Court order).iii.She informed the Defendants of the directions/orders issued by the Honourable Court on 11th March, 2025 and informed them that they were in breach of the same but they blatantly disregarded the warnings and continued with their vile actions.iv.On 16th March, 2025 she returned to Diani and parked her vehicle in her shaded parking space in which a wheelbarrow and scooter tenant of the 3rd Defendant were also parked. (Attached and marked as “AK – 2” was a picture of the area).v.She was aware the Defendants were served with a copy of the Court Order on 17th March, 2025 and had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.vi.Instead of complying with the Order the Defendants immediately and knowingly breached it and continued their vicious campaign against her and escalated the same.vii.On 17th March, 2025, further to being served, the Defendants continued to block her parking space and inserted even larger stones in front of it and continued to harass and intimidate her and destroy her quiet enjoyment. Attached and marked as “AK – 3” was a picture of the area.viii.On the morning of 18th March, 2024, while lawfully performing her work duties and having returned from the vet with her sick dog, she returned home to find not only her shaded parking space of eight (8) years blocked with a large wheelbarrow and big stones by the Defendants, but that a branch had been laid on the ground blocking her access to the common drop‑off parking bay as well. Attached and marked as “AK – 4” was a picture of the area.ix.She removed the log and proceeded to park her vehicle in the common area in order to drop off her pet and return to work.x.She advised the employee of the 2nd and 8th Defendants, Habakuk Opande, that the Order of the Honourable Court was in force and known to the Defendants and recorded a video of the same and images. Attached and marked as “AK – 5” was an image of the video.xi.She then entered the residential area of the property to drop off her sick pet and having forgotten her keys she returned to the vehicle to get them whereupon she was chased and assaulted by Bruno, partner of Lisbeth Sommes, the 2nd Defendant, in an unprovoked attack. Bruno aggressively chased her and tried to strike her while screaming at her for parking in the drop‑off parking in the common area, demanding she get out of it and threatening to beat her. The 7th Defendant tried to restrain him from hitting her.xii.She retreated towards her car for safety while Stella Nyabuti, the 6th Defendant, encouraged the assault and screamed at her. Attached and marked as “AK – 6” was an image of the video.xiii.The 2nd Defendant, and Nyabuti, the 6th Defendant, were present together with several other employees of the 8th Defendant and an employee Rose of the 4th and 5th Defendants, all ganging up on her and shouting and aiding and abetting the assault.xiv.An employee of Sykes & Colobus, the 8th Defendant owned by the 2nd Defendant, Habakuk Onyango Opande, then pushed and hit her violently, pushed her to the ground causing her to sustain severe bruises and scratches in the left upper arm, further chasing and pushing her into her vehicle, of which she recorded images, and broke her phone in relation to which a medical report P3 Form was filed. Attached and marked as “AK – 7” was an image of the video.xv.Nyabuti, the 6th Defendant, then surrounded and screamed repeatedly in her face and threatened her in a continuation of her violent, abusive, criminal and malicious conduct which commenced on her arrival at the Title in year 2024 and in relation to which she embarked on a vicious, underhand, dishonest and violent campaign to intimidate, harm, abuse, defame, slander and ensure that she had no peace in the property, further inciting and ordering other persons to join her in her vicious campaign of abuse, in particular the 4th and 5th Defendants’ employee Rose who often followed her with a camera and abused her as she passed, and Habakuk who physically assaulted her, with those refusing fired from their position.xvi.She was surrounded by several violent and aggressive people and was scared for her life and safety and how her daughter and she could continue to live in the property.xvii.The 6th Defendant had four Occurrence Books filed against her at Diani police station since the year 2024 for environmental damage, criminal damage, obstruction and inter‑meddling, none of which were investigated and followed up by OCS Diani and therefore encouraged the absolute impunity and increasingly malicious, violent and dangerous conduct of Nyabuti. Attached and marked as “AK – 8” were OBs against the Defendants.xviii.On 18th March, 2025 following the assault the 6th Defendant locked the common access door obstructing her. This door led to the residential cottage section of the Title and her property.xix.The Defendants prevented her from entering and refused to let her in even when she said she needed to drop off her sick dog at her house.xx.Habakuk, who remained outside and had violently assaulted her, demanded she leave the property.xxi.In fear of further attacks she immediately proceeded to Diani police station to report the matter.xxii.She filed OB No. 31 of 18/03/25 at 1310 hours and thereafter obtained medical assistance at the Diani Medical Clinic. Attached and marked as “AK – 9” was the copy of her Medical Examination report.xxiii.On 18th March, 2025 around 5.00pm she returned home with her child and had to hire private security to escort and protect them from the Defendants and their proxies.xxiv.On 18th March, 2025 the Defendants built a stone wall and blocked entirely the common parking area drop‑off section with large stones.xxv.Later that same day in the afternoon of 18th March, 2025 the Defendants installed a chain barrier to block her access to the common area.xxvi.In fear of her safety and that of her child she was currently paying for private security to escort her in the property at a cost of a sum of Kenya Shillings Four Thousand (Kshs. 4,000.00/=) per day.xxvii.On 19th March, 2025 the Defendants installed large hooks and metal chains on her parking space, placed bundles of makuti (coconut thatch) in her parking space.xxviii.The contempt of the Order of the Honourable Court was done to harass, punish and intimidate her for bringing the suit against the Defendants and to openly show defiance of the Order of the Honourable Court so that her ability to remain safe and take refuge in the just Order of the Court was denied to her and her child.xxix.She remained in fear for her life, safety and rights and sought the urgent assistance of the Honourable Court as she believed the Defendants were capable of harm, violence, murder and other such tactics and were torturing her by using force to change her behaviour and deny her rights and quiet enjoyment, in particular that Stella Nyabuti, the 6th Defendant, and Habakuk Opande were capable of great violence and abuse and she sought the protection of the Court in humbly requesting through her Advocate an injunction against the 6th Defendant and Habakuk of the 8th Defendant accessing the property.xxx.she no longer had quiet enjoyment of her property or any due process.xxxi.The actions of the Defendants were a clear illustration of their utter disregard for Court processes and rule of law.xxxii.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that the Defendants’ conduct undermined the authority and dignity of the Honourable Court as they were personally aware of the orders of the Court and had neither sought to have the same appealed against and had instead continually escalated their defiance.xxxiii.It was in the interest of justice that the Defendants be cited for contempt for frustrating the orders of this Honourable Court, thus bringing the Court into disrepute.xxxiv.The Affidavit was sworn in support of his Application for the orders sought pending the hearing and determination of this case. V. The Response to the Notice of Motion application dated 21st March, 2025 14.In further opposition, the Defendants/Respondents filed a 77 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn by ELIZABETH SOMMES, Director and Shareholder of the 1st Defendant and the lawful representative of the Defendants/ Respondents on 16th June, 2025 where she reiterated as follows that:-a.She had the authority of the other Defendants/Respondents herein to swear the affidavit and was therefore competent to swear the affidavit.b.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true, that the Plaintiffs/Applicants filed an application dated 21st March, 2025 seeking the following orders:-a.The Respondents herein be cited for contempt of this Honourable Court following its willful disobedience of the orders of this Honourable Court issue on 11th March, 2025 in this matter.b.The Respondents grant access to common areas, shaded parking, amenities and services common to all property owners and immediately remove all present obstructions to the same.c.An order directing an Officer at the DCI in Kwale County to supervise Order 2 and 3 above.d.A temporary injunction and/ or permanent injunction prohibiting the 7th Respondent who is a key instigator of violence, abuse, criminal acts and harassment of the Plaintiff’s and who has 3 previous OB’s made against them and the 8th Respondent’s employee Habakuk Opande from any access to Title Number KWALE/ DIANI BEACH/783 pending a hearing of the matter by this Honourable Court as this is essential to any prospect of quiet enjoyment, safety and security of the Plaintiffs with regard also to the protection provisions cited in the Prevention of Torture Act.e.An order restraining the Defendants, their families, employees, proxies or any other person connected to them from speaking to, harassing or approaching the Plaintiffs, their staff, assets, guests or property.f.Costs of this application be providedc.At the outset, the Respondents respectfully stated that the present application was, in essence, a personal and petty disagreement between the 2nd Applicant and the 1st to 3rd Respondents, unnecessarily escalated into litigation.d.She was further advised by her Advocates that the Applicants had not effected service of their pleadings, including the present application, on the Interested Parties.e.While it was regrettable that the Court’s time and resources had been invoked in such a matter, the Respondents were compelled to respond now that the issue was before the Honourable Court.f.With reference to the Statement of Defense and Replying Affidavit, the relationship between the Applicants and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents was contractual in nature.g.The Applicants were members of a residential development by virtue of the Lease Agreement dated 15th November, 2016.h.As lessees, the Applicants were contractually bound to the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement.i.Clause (2)(d) of the Lease Agreement obligated the Applicants to contribute to the maintenance of common areas and shared amenities through payment of service charge and utility bills.j.Access to common areas and shared amenities was not an absolute right but contingent upon fulfilment of the obligation to pay service charge.k.The Respondents had no obligation, contractual or otherwise, to provide access free of charge.l.the 2nd Applicant had failed or neglected to pay service charge for an extended period, leading to arrears of over Kenya Shillings Five Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 500,000.00/=)m.This was an issue of fact raised by the Respondents on their pleadings.n.The said issue of fact could only be challenged by way of an affidavit or documentary evidence showing and/ or establishing that the 2nd Applicant had indeed been paying service charge.o.There was no affidavit sworn by the 2nd Applicant to that effect neither had the 2nd Applicant placed any documents and/ or receipts of service charge payments before this court.p.In absence of the said affidavit and documentary evidence, the fact remains unchallenged.q.The 2nd Applicant had at all times been aware of her obligation evidenced by the several notices and demands sent to her by the Respondents and/ or the Respondents’ Advocates on record.r.Therefore, by intentionally opting out of the terms and conditions of the lease agreement by failing and/ or refusing to pay service charge, the 2nd Applicant had driven herself out of the right to the shared amenities and common services.s.A perusal of the Applicants’/Plaintiffs’ bundle of documents revealed several receipts evidencing payment of service charge.t.Notably, all the said receipts were issued in the name of the 1st Applicant and that there was no single receipt in the name of the 2nd Applicant.u.Further, the 1st Applicant had at all material times had unimpeded access to common areas and shared amenities.v.Accordingly, the 1st Applicant did not seek any relief in the present Application.w.This position was further supported by the fact that all the supporting affidavits had been sworn solely by the 2nd Applicant, and in none of those affidavits had the 1st Applicant stated that he had been denied access to common areas and shared amenities.x.The 2nd Applicant was fully aware of her continued non‑compliance with the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement.y.Despite knowing that she had not paid any service charge, the 2nd Applicant had involved the 1st Applicant in the proceedings in a deliberate attempt to rely on the 1st Applicant’s evidence of payment.z.The Affiant argued that prayer number 2 of the present application read:“The Respondents grant access to common areas, shaded parking, amenities and services common to all property owners and immediately remove all present obstructions to the same.”aa.If allowed, the foregoing would have been a blanket order. The prayer was vague and overbroad and failed to specify to whom the access was to be granted.ab.This was a cunning attempt by the 2nd Applicant to escape her contractual obligations by using the 1st Applicant’s receipts of payment of service charge to obscure her non‑payment.ac.The application was a calculated attempt by the 2nd Applicant to circumvent her contractual obligations under the Lease Agreement by improperly relying on the 1st Applicant’s compliance, in order to conceal her own default in payment of service charge.ad.If the 1st Applicant maintained, albeit untruthfully, that he had been denied access to common areas and shared amenities, then the Respondents had no problem with restoring such access and were not opposed to the Court granting the said order in favour of the 1st Applicant.ae.With respect to the 2nd Applicant, it was not clear to the Respondents on what basis she was entitled to access to common areas. The Respondents were ready and willing to restore and/or grant access once the 2nd Applicant fulfilled her obligations under the Lease Agreement.af.The Respondents were served with a court order dated 11th March, 2025.ag.The said order was defective and incapable of being enforced.ah.It was a well‑established principle of procedural law that a court order must be founded on an existing application.ai.The said order referenced an application dated 10th March, 2025 pursuant to which the said order was granted.aj.The Respondents were not aware of any application dated 10th March, 2025 either filed or served by the Applicants, noting instead that the Applicants had filed and served three applications dated 18th February, 2025, 20th March, 2025 and 29th May, 2025.ak.The Notice of Motion application dated 10th March, 2025 referenced in the said order did not and had never existed.al.It would therefore offend the principles of procedural law that a court order based on a non‑existent application would be capable of being enforced.am.The Applicants could and would argue that the court order dated 11th March, 2025 referred to the application dated 18th February, 2025 and that the discrepancy was a clerical error.an.The discrepancy was not a mere clerical error if it resulted in confusion about the basis of the orders granted.ao.Even if it was evident that the order was intended to relate to the application dated 18th February, 2025 and that the wrong date was entered by mistake, the Court had inherent powers to correct clerical or typographical errors.ap.Unless and until such a correction was made, the order dated 11th March, 2025 as it stood was defective as it referenced a non‑existent application and was incapable of being enforced.aq.Without prejudice to the foregoing and in the alternative, the acts stated to be allegedly in contempt were that the 2nd Applicant was denied access to shaded parking and that her parking space was blocked.ar.In granting the order, the Judge stated:-“That there be an order of Status Quo to be maintained meaning the situation remains as it was prior to the commencement of this suit.”as.The Applicants, in their prior application dated 18th February, 2025, prayed for:-“An order for reconnection of amenities and services by the Defendants, their agents or servants.”at.An order compelling the reconnection of amenities would not had been necessary if the 2nd Applicant already had access to the shared amenities.au.The implication of the foregoing was that, prior to the institution of the suit, the 2nd Applicant had been denied access to such amenities and services by the Defendants.av.If the effect of the status quo order issued by the Honourable Court was to preserve the state of affairs existing prior to the filing of the suit, then the condition to be preserved was the 2nd Applicant’s disconnection from shared amenities.aw.If the court order was capable of enforcement, the Respondents’ actions, specifically the denial of access to the 2nd Applicant’s parking space, did not constitute contempt of court but were, in fact, consistent with and in furtherance of the said order.ax.The Respondents reiterated that the 1st Plaintiff had access to amenities and was not in any way opposed to the Court granting any orders in favour of the 1st Applicant.ay.The Respondents reiterated that the 1st Applicant had full access to the amenities and they raised no objection to the granting of any orders in favour of the 1st Applicant.az.At paragraphs 11–16 of the Supporting Affidavit, the 2nd Applicant made sweeping and sensational allegations of serious and violent assault allegedly perpetrated by agents of the Respondents.ba.These allegations were laughable at best.bb.Assault was a grave allegation with serious legal implications, and any such claim had to be supported by cogent and credible evidence.bc.The evidence adduced by the 2nd Applicant in support of her claims lacked probative value and fell far short of the standard required to prove such a serious accusation.bd.The primary evidentiary document relied upon in such cases was the P3 Form, which detailed the nature of injuries sustained and established a causal link between the alleged injuries and the alleged act of assault.be.If the 2nd Applicant had indeed suffered a serious and violent assault, it would have been expected that, after making a report at the police station, she would have immediately obtained a P3 form to corroborate her claims.bf.The conspicuous absence of the P3 form undermined the credibility of her allegations.bg.Instead, the 2nd Applicant had produced a handwritten note from an unidentified clinic, which did not even bear the name or credentials of the alleged examining doctor.bh.The said note merely stated that the 2nd Applicant was assaulted. It went without saying that unless the doctor was physically present during the alleged incident, such a conclusion was speculative and inadmissible as proof of assault. The same was purportedly reported that she was assaulted during her work duties, yet the place was residential.bi.The note did not establish a causal link between the superficial injuries allegedly sustained and any action by the Respondents and/or their agents.bj.In the absence of expert testimony authenticating the note, and considering the anonymity of the alleged author, the document was of no evidentiary value and could have been authored by anyone, including the 2nd Applicant herself.bk.Lastly, the 2nd Applicant also made reference to a video that allegedly captured the assault incident.bl.If such a video did in fact exist, nothing would have prevented the 2nd Applicant from producing the same in full. Her reliance instead on selected images purportedly extracted from the video raised serious questions as to the existence and content of the original footage.bm.The images themselves were unclear, unauthenticated, and failed to demonstrate any act of assault. As such, the videos were equally devoid of probative value.bn.In light of the foregoing, it was evident that the allegations of assault were a calculated fabrication, designed to obtain unwarranted injunctive relief and frustrate the lawful enforcement of the Lease Agreement terms and conditions by the Respondents.bo.The present suit was fundamentally based on the 2nd Applicant’s breach of her contractual obligations under the Lease Agreement by failing and/or refusing to pay service charge.bp.As a result of this continued default, the Respondents had lawfully opted to withhold services that were contingent upon payment of the service charge.bq.Accordingly, and in exercise of their rights under the lease, the 2nd Applicant had been denied access to certain shared amenities and common areas.br.The individuals against whom the 2nd Applicant now sought restraining orders were employees and agents of the management company duly tasked with the maintenance and oversight of the residential premises.bs.The 2nd Applicant had fabricated allegations of assault against these employees in an attempt to procure restraining orders that would shield her from the consequences of her contractual non‑compliance, hence the many OBs in place.bt.The restraining orders sought were calculated to allow the 2nd Applicant to continue enjoying services and amenities funded by service charge, without fulfilling her obligation to contribute toward those very services.bu.If granted, such orders would have had the effect of barring the management company’s employees from enforcing the terms and conditions of the Lease Agreement, thereby enabling the 2nd Applicant to unjustly benefit from shared facilities while in breach of her payment obligations.bv.She prayed to the Honourable Court that it was in the best interest of justice and the overriding objective principle that the Plaintiffs’ Application dated the 18th February, 2025 be dismissed with costs to the Respondents. VI. The Further Replying Affidavit of the 2nd Plaintiff in reponse to the Defendants Replying Affidavit sworn on 16th June, 2025 15.The Plaintiffs responded to the Defendants’ Replying Affidavit sworn on 16th June, 2025 through a 43 paragraphed further Replying Affidavit dated 16th October, 2025 wherein the Affiant averred that:-a.She had read the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 2nd Defendant dated 16th June, 2025 and made her affidavit in reply, specifically addressing and rebutting the allegations found in Paragraphs 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 23, 42, 50, 55, 68 and 69.b.The deponent “Elizabeth Sommes” to the Replying Affidavit was not the director or owner of the 1st Defendant. The true director was Lisbeth Sommes, as shown in CR12 documents filed. This called into question the authority of the deponent and the affidavit’s authenticity.c.The Replying Affidavit had never been properly served on her or her Advocates despite clear court orders to do so, a breach of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Order 19, Rule 3, which guaranteed procedural fairness.d.The Defendants had used multiple names in pleadings and documents. The signature on the Replying Affidavit appeared copied or forged, further tainting the affidavit.e.Her Advocates had filed a notice of production in relation to the passport of the 2nd Defendant to substantiate her location at all material times.f.The affidavit was made on 16th June, 2025 when the 2nd Defendant appeared to have been overseas.g.She respectfully requested the Honourable Court to disregard or strike out the Replying Affidavit or affected parts under the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and Evidence Act, Cap. 80.h.The injunction and status quo orders issued by the Honourable Court on 11th March, 2025, 21st March 2025 and 24th July, 2025 had been duly served on all Defendants in compliance with Order 5, Rules 7 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.i.The service had been effected via personal service and electronic mail on the Defendants’ legal representatives and designated agents pursuant to court directions.j.The Defendants’ claims in Paragraphs 4, 42, and 50 of the Replying Affidavit that they were unaware or confused regarding a minor clerical error in the Order dated 11th March, 2025 were misleading and unsupported by evidence, as they also stated they were aware of the correct date on the Certificate of Urgency and Notice of Motion application (18th February, 2025).k.The Defendants had not made any application in relation to the minor error in the Order of 11th March, 2025.l.The Defendants’ Replying Affidavit responded substantively on breaches of the Order dated 11th March, 2025.m.Notwithstanding proper service, the Defendants had flagrantly contravened the Court’s orders by obstructing access, damaging property fixtures including interfering with water supply, hacking pipes, engaging in intimidation and assault, and carrying out unauthorized construction, as supported by videos, medical reports, and multiple contempt applications.n.The Defendants had also repeatedly violated the orders, which left the Plaintiffs no choice but to make three further contempt applications in an attempt to restrain the Defendants, whose contempt was escalating, resulting in an employee managed by the 6th and 7th Defendants being arrested and jailed in September, 2025.o.Contrary to paragraph 50, independent evidence and the arrest and charge of the Defendants’ employee in September, 2025 established that interference with her private water supply continued unabated and hacking of her hose pipe by the Defendants’ employee occurred post‑order, in violation of Court directives.p.Such repeated egregious breaches constituted contempt of Court and a gross challenge to judicial authority.q.She submitted that pursuant to the provision of Order 26, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and inherent judicial powers, the Court should have imposed appropriate sanctions, including contempt findings, compensation, and other orders necessary to enforce compliance.r.She owned property pursuant to a valid leasehold interest registered under LR KWALE/DIANI BEACH ROAD/783 for 99 years, as per the sale agreement and lease contract. Her name appeared on the title deed.s.The provision of Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya protected her right to own and peacefully enjoy property.t.Her rights included ownership and access to common areas as co‑owned property, subject to shared maintenance and management.u.The 1st Defendant, purportedly the headlease holder and management company, had never been properly constituted and had failed to allocate management shares to her, despite obligations under the sale and lease documents.v.The property rights she possessed existed independently of contractual rights and were protected not only under the Constitution of Kenya, but also under the Land Act, Land Registration Act, and Sectional Properties Act.w.Clause 1 of the Lease explicitly granted her ownership of the premises with rights to common areas and utilities shared with other owners and the 1st Defendant.x.The Defendants had no lawful rights to exclude or interfere with her access or use of common areas, water, electricity, sewage, cables, and pipes.y.At paragraph 9 of the Replying Affidavit, the suggestion that access restrictions were justified by unpaid service charges was false and illegal.z.She had always acknowledged the obligation to pay service charges to a properly constituted and lawfully operating management company. The 1st Defendant failed on both counts.aa.Paragraph 11 and related assertions were incorrect; the Lease did not allow restriction of access due to service charge dispute and set out a due process for such disputes that was mandatory and not optional, and which the Defendants had wholly failed to comply with in bad faith.ab.Clause 4 of the Lease mandates binding arbitration for all disputes, including specifically disputes regarding compensation which includes service charges, under the Arbitration Act No. 4 of 1995 and the applicable arbitration laws and rules.ac.This arbitration clause is legally binding; refusal to comply is a breach of contract and an act of bad faith.ad.Clause 5 of the Lease further directs that undisputed amounts can be claimed by the 1st Defendant only through an appropriate court and only after due notice and process.ae.The Defendants had refused multiple dispute resolution requests and that the 2nd Defendant, sole director of the 1st Defendant with duties and obligations to owners, had repeatedly refused to meet with her prior to filing the suit, instead enforcing unilateral decisions by shutting off utilities and denying access to compel payment of unsubstantiated amounts to private accounts of individuals, including the 7th Defendant, who was a stranger to her.af.This conduct was unlawful and intended to intimidate and coerce payment, circumventing the contractual and legal duties of the 1st and 2nd Defendants.ag.The Kenyan courts upheld arbitration clauses and would compel arbitration or stay proceedings where arbitration was ignored.ah.The Defendants’ disregard for the arbitration clause or the court process mandated and not optional under the Lease in relation to compensation invalidated their attempt to deny access or impose service charges without arbitration or a court order.ai.She denied owing service charges as claimed at Paragraph 13 of the Replying Affidavit, as the Defendants had never furnished audited accounts or valid invoices for nine years and had included her private water and electricity bills in these charges when they should have been accounted for separately.aj.The High Court in the case of:- “Tatu City Limited – Versus - Home Bridge Limited (E339 of 2021)” had held that service charges without proper governance and financial accountability were unenforceable.ak.The Defendants’ attempts to collect unpaid charges without transparency were unlawful and retaliatory.al.The disconnection of utilities and obstruction of access to common areas was punitive and wrongful.am.To claim these issues arose from service charges alone was manifestly absurd, particularly since the Defendants owed a duty of care to provide audited accounts, proper invoices, and financial transparency.an.The argument advanced in Paragraphs 4, 69, and related sections that violent and obstructive conduct and denial of property rights was justified by service charge disputes was ridiculous, given the Defendants’ prior failure to comply with Sale Agreement and Lease obligations regarding accounts and reporting, building restrictions, share allocation, arbitration, due process, and the obligation to install a separate water meter and electricity meter in her property at the 1st Defendant’s cost.ao.Her good faith efforts to resolve the dispute had been repeatedly rebuffed:i.She requested meetings with the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Defendants, all rejected.ii.Fidel Worku, another owner, faced similar refusals on her behalf.iii.On 20th July 2025, the Defendants filed suit ELC EO63/2025 duplicating issues before the Court (forum shopping) in order to circumvent the orders of the Court.iv.The Defendants blocked access to her property and common areas, blocked her parking, assaulted her and harassed her staff, violated her quiet enjoyment, prevented her installation of her own water meter, hacked her water pipes and constructed unauthorized structures post‑court orders in blatant disregard of the orders of the Court.v.These actions had cost her over a sum of Kenya Shillings Fourty Five Thousand (Kshs. 45,000.00/=) monthly in security expenses and over a sum of Kenya Shillings Two Hundred and fifty Thousand (Kshs. 250,000.00/-) in repairs and alternative measures.vi.The Defendants were subject to multiple contempt proceedings and criminal complaints for obstructive misconduct and were under investigation by DCI headquarters in relation to land and economic fraud in relation to the suit property. Attached and marked as “AK – 1” was the DCI Letter.ap.These facts disproved any suggestion that disputes were trivial or petty.aq.Denial by the Defendants in Paragraphs 55 and 68 of assault claims was unfounded.ar.She had produced additional video evidence and electronic evidence. Attached and marked as “AK – 2” and “AK – 3”, police records (OB), medical reports by Dr. Onkoba of Diani Clinic, and witness statements proving assaults and intimidation by the Defendants’ agents, including the 2nd Defendant’s boyfriend Bruno on 18th March, 2025.as.She confirmed that a P3 – Form had been filed at Diani Police Station in relation to the assault and she was advised that ODPP Kwale had failed to action the file along with multiple other cases involving the Defendants, and that the file was under lock when they sought to obtain a copy.at.The Defendants’ statements denying assaults were unreliable as they were contradicted by their own witness statements filed by the Defendants in a separate filing in ELC EO63/2025 on the same matter.au.The statements of the Defendants’ cleaners, Rose Nyoike and Rehema Karisa Konga dated 20th March 2025 in those proceedings, were unsigned, fabricated and purported to be made to Diani Police Station. They stated that her dog attacked Bruno on 18th March, 2025; however, it was clear from the electronic video evidence and substantial other evidence that she had not been accompanied by her dog. The Affiant deponed that the statements were fictitious accounts by their dependent employees doctored to provide a defence for Bruno against charges of assault.av.Such unlawful conduct violated her constitutional rights, property rights and court orders.aw.The Defendants’ separate filing of ELC E063/2025 on the same issues amounted to forum shopping and abuse of process prima facie to circumvent the orders of the Court in bad faith.ax.The Defendants filed a witness statement that included statements that directly contradicted and brought into question their filings in these proceedings, and where the purported 2nd Defendant had again used a different name, Genevieve Sommes, and claimed to be in Diani and Kenya at all material times when in fact she was understood to have been overseas.ay.The 2nd Defendant was put to strict proof of her presence in the country and that her Advocates had served a letter of notice of production of her passport on her Advocates to substantiate her location at all material times.az.She prayed for consolidation to avoid duplicity and conflicting rulings.ba.She prayed the Court to:a.Strike out the Replying Affidavit for procedural failures and questionable authenticity.b.Hold the Defendants in contempt for violating court orders.c.Uphold her constitutional and statutory property rights.d.Order restoration of access and utilities.e.Require audited accounts and a properly constituted management company before any enforceable service charges.f.Dismiss unsubstantiated claims.g.Sanction multiplicity and abuse of judicial process.h.Award costs and further relief as justice required VII. The Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025 16.The Application was brought under the provision of Orders 51 rule 1, 40 rule and of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 3A and 3B of Civil Procedure Act Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the Law. 17.The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought the following orders:a.Spent.b.Retraining orders issued as a matter of urgency pending hearing and determination of this Application, granted against:i.the 6th Defendant and 7th Defendant be prohibited from entering the Property of Utinzi Ltd 783/Diani Beach Road/ Kwale County (the “Property”).ii.guards employed by the Defendants, specifically, Habakuk Opande employed by the 8th Defendant and the Crest guard employed by the 4th - 5th Defendants be prohibited from entering the Property pending the criminal complaint being determined, andiii.the builder Francis Onzere, his construction staff and any proxies or other builders be prohibited from entering the Property other than for emergency repairs to existing structures.iv.That these orders be supervised and enforced by OCS Diani.c.The Defendants herein be cited for contempt of this Hon. court following its willful continued, repeated and escalating disobedience of the orders of this Hon. Court issue on 11th March, 2025 and further exasperated by the Defendants failure to have regard to the seriousness of the matter as set out in the Order dated 24th March, 2025 of this Hon. Court violations of orders of lead state agencies NEMA and NCA and the decision of the Planning Department not to authorise the building.d.The illegal works on Carudie, blocking my parking and fencing further to the status quo order of 11th March 2025 be demolished within 7 days at the cost of the 2nd Defendant, 6th Defendant and 7th Defendant.e.The 2nd Defendant comply with the status quo order, immediately cease damage to the Plaintiff’s property and vehicle, cease blocking her shaded parking area and cease harassment and violence against the Plaintiff’s and their property; cutting trees and clearing bush, and; all building works on her house Carudie in plot 783/Diani Beach Road/ Kwale.f.An order directing that OSC and OCPD Diani Police Station supervise the Orders of this Hon Court.g.An order that OPCS Diani investigate, act on and report to this Hon Court on all outstanding OB’s filed by the Plaintiff’s against the Defendants and actions taken thereto.h.That we humbly request the Hon. Justice Naikuni attend the site at the earliest opportunity.i.Costs of this application be provided.j.Cost of additional security and replacement of all tires of the 2nd Plaintiff’s vehicle KCW 783K.k.Punitive and exemplary damages and damages for distress be awarded to the 2nd Plaintiff such as the Hon Court determines. 18.The Application was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts on the face of the application and further supported by the 49 Paragraphed annexed affidavit of ASHMINDER KAUR, the 2nd Plaintiff, sworn on the same day, wherein it was averred that:i.She was aware that on 11th March, 2025, the Honourable Court issued an order that status quo be maintained of property TITLE NUMBER KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783. Attached and marked as “AK – 1” was a copy of the Court order.ii.On 25th March, 2025 the Honourable Court issued an order further to a certificate of urgency in relation to a contempt application against the Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 2” was a copy of the second Court order.iii.She was aware the Defendants were served with a copy of the Court Order on 17th March, 2025 and had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.iv.Instead of complying with the Order, the Defendants immediately and knowingly breached it and continued their vicious campaign against her, escalating the same and placing the safety, quiet enjoyment and security of her family, including her minor child, at high risk. She stated that her vehicle tires were slashed on consecutive days, forcing her to flee her property for safety reasons while the Defendants openly continued illegal actions and building works.v.On 3rd May, 2025 the 2nd Defendant, acting through the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants, commenced building works on the 2nd Defendant’s unit known as Carudie, located next to the 2nd Plaintiff, and in violation of building laws continued to build until late on Saturday. The Affiant stated that the 2nd Defendant scattered building materials all over the common parking and areas and displayed no signs or papers in relation to the works.vi.The 2nd Defendant intended to remove her makuti roof and replace it with ring beams, roof slabs and mabati metal roofing in violation of the Lease provisions common to all owners in the Property. The Affiant argued that the 2nd Defendant was fully aware of these provisions as the director of the 1st Defendant, with an obligation to comply, but instead acted to abuse her position, benefit herself, and use force and violence to achieve her objectives.vii.The Defendants continued to cut trees in the Property which was the habitat of endangered species including colobus monkeys, listed on the IUCN red list. The Affiant averred that this was in violation of the Kenya Forest Service report issued on 15th October, 2024 against the 4th , 5th and 6th Defendants recommending their prosecution, and ignored the Colobus Centre Diani which had attended the area and informed the 6th Defendant of the requirement to preserve the habitat. The Affiant deponed that this also violated the status quo order of the Court before which a conservation order had been sought. Report and OB filed and not acted on at Diani Police Station.viii.On Sunday, 4th May, 2025, while she attended Gurdwara (Sikh temple) for prayers in Mombasa, the 2nd Defendant, acting through the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants and the spouse of the 7th Defendant, builder Francis Onzere, continued building works and nailed and tied wooden poles and makuti thatch to her house. The Affiant stated that they trespassed on her property to do so, tied ropes to her beams, nailed poles onto her walls, cracked a wall, tore her security netting to nail and tie ropes into her house, blocked her view, air and light, and damaged her property. The Affiant deponed that this terrified her minor child, distressed her, and deeply alarmed and scared her. OB No. 62 of 04/05/25 was filed at Diani Police Station and officers attended and took a record of the damage, however the Defendants were not in the Property and the 6th and 7th Defendants could not be apprehended. Attached and marked as “AK – 4” were images of the building and damage to the Plaintiff’s wall and trespass thereon.ix.On 5th May, 2025, further to police attending, the Defendants removed the structure built on and nailed to her property, leaving cracked and damaged walls, torn netting and damaged beams. The Affiant averred that they then installed poles one foot from her house roof and placed black plastic on the poles to block her light and air, to harass her and prevent her from seeing the illegal works. Attached was Electronic Video Evidence.x.She contacted NEMA in relation to the noise, trespass and construction works in violation of the Honourable Court’s order, which had resulted in chaos in the Property, splattering her vehicle with cement and breaking security lights in the property, with glass and building materials scattered on common areas. The Affiant averred that NEMA attended the site, advised that no supervisor was present, that the 2nd Defendant had no license to build, and a stop instruction was issued.xi.The 2nd Defendant still continued building works until late hours past 5pm in the evening. The Affiant argued that the builder, Francis Onzere, was the husband/spouse of the 7th Defendant and employed by the 2nd Defendant, who was already subject to a suspension of works order in the same Property following violation in relation to another house built by the 2nd Defendant without meeting NCA criteria, including having a valid license and adequate supervision. Attached and marked as “AK – 3” was the copy of the NCA suspension order dated 27th February, 2025.xii.Up to Sunday, 11th May, 2025, the 2nd Defendant illegally continued work at her unit Carudie despite being called by NEMA and directed to stop.xiii.On Monday, 12th May 2025, NEMA issued a stop order to the 2nd Defendant and marked the unit Carudie with a green “X” and “illegal” “for demolition.” Attached and marked as “AK – 5” and “AK – 6” were copies of the NEMA stop order dated 12th May, 2025.xiv.On 13th May, 2025 the National Construction Authority attended and marked the unit Carudie with a red “X” and “suspended works” and issued a suspension order to the 2nd Defendant. Attached and marked as “AK – 7” and “AK – 8” were copies of the NCA suspension order dated 13th May , 2025.xv.On each and every occasion the 2nd, 6th and 7th Defendants were absent or left the suit premises when state agencies attended and could not be apprehended. The Affiant averred that despite not being in the suit premises, on each and every occasion directions were given to workers building on the site to defy the Order, ignore state agencies’ orders, and do what the 2nd Defendant and her staff directed, as they assured the workers nothing would happen to them.xvi.On 16th May, 2025 the two left tires of her vehicle beraing registration numbers KCW 783K, Mini Pajero, were slashed when the security guard of the 2nd Defendant’s company, the 8th Defendant Sykes & Colobus Ltd, known as Habakuk Opande, who had previously violently assaulted her, was present around 6am. The Affiant stated that the flat tires were reported to her by staff at 7.00am. Attached and marked as “AK – 9” were images of the tires.xvii.Initially she thought the tires may have been punctured by building materials thrown around by the 2nd Defendant, and noted glass had also been thrown near her wheels to shred them and located nowhere else in the parking. Attached and marked as “AK – 10” and “AK – 11” were images of the glass. However, the Affiant deponed that Diani Tyre Centre, on testing the tires, advised her they had been slashed in the side five times and three times respectively by a sharp object. The Affiant stated that the front tire slashed five times was beyond repair and was held at Diani Police Station as evidence of criminal and malicious damage.xviii.In fear of her safety and that of her child, she was currently paying for SGA private security at a cost of a sum of Kenya Shillings Fourty Five Thousand (Kshs. 45,000.00/=) per month. She deponed that she brought to the attention of the Honourable Court that the guards of the Property were not—and had never been—common security guards, but were the private employees of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants imposed on the Plaintiffs and used by the 2nd, 4th – 7th Defendants as weapons and goons against other owners.xix.While these guards sat at the common entrances as well as worked in the private houses of their employers, they were violent and dangerous and weaponized against the Plaintiffs and their property. The Affiant argued that this further demonstrated the flagrant abuse of office by the 2nd Defendant, director of Utunzi Ltd, the management company and head lessor, from whom all illegality flowed, and who acted together with the 4th – 7th Defendants to violate the rights of other owners and use force to abuse her office to benefit herself through illegal and unlawful means, safe in the knowledge that the guards were really her private goons whom she made other owners pay for.xx.On 16th May, 2025 the Planning Department, on advice of the Kwale County Solicitor, confirmed that the building works could not be approved in light of the status quo Order dated 11th March, 2025 of the Honourable Court and pending determination by the Court, and that the Defendants were fully aware they could not proceed with works.xxi.On 16th May, 2025 the 6th and 7th Defendants attended the suit premises and the “X” marks of NEMA and the NCA on the 2nd Defendant’s house were painted over in white paint. The Affiant deponed that this painting was not possible without the express knowledge and consent of the 2nd, 6th and 7th Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 14” was an image of the painted‑over “X” marks of Lead State Agencies NEMA and NCA).xxii.She called Duncan Ochande of NEMA, who confirmed that NEMA had not authorized removal of their mark, which had been illegally painted over by the Defendants.xxiii.On Saturday, 17th May, 2025, both tires on the right side of her vehicle were slashed. The Affiant deponed that the SGA Guard she had hired had patrolled the vehicle parked in the common area hourly and noticed at 6am that the tire had been recently punctured by force of an object to the side. Attached and marked as “AK – 12” and “AK – 13” were images of the tires.xxiv.Illegal building works commenced again at the 2nd Defendant’s house on Saturday, 17th May, 2025 and continued until 6pm in defiance of Court Orders and Lead State Agency directives. Attached was Electronic Evidence submitted.xxv.She called Diani Police Station in relation to her tires being slashed, and OCS Diani apprehended the 7th Defendant, guard Omari of the 4th and 5th Defendants, and guard Opande of the 8th Defendant. The Affiant deponed that she filed OB No. 45 of 17/05/25 at Diani Police Station, arranged for a friend to collect her child, and handed in a slashed tire as evidence. The 6th Defendant was not located.xxvi.OCS met with the apprehended individuals. The Affiant argued that she had provided statements, and the OCS noted it was clear the guards were working to further the private vendettas of the 2nd, 4th – 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants. The OCS further warned the Defendants that they would be held accountable should anything happen to her or her child.xxvii.The 7th Defendant stated at Diani Police Station that she and builder Francis Onzere were angry that the Affiant had posted on Diani Security Group about their illegal building activity. The Affiant argued that this may have been a motivating factor in slashing her tires, as their illegal activity was exposed and they were concerned about their reputation being impacted. The Affiant stated that this made them more likely to harm her, her family, her interests and her property.xxviii.On the evening of 17th May, 2025, left without a working vehicle and surrounded by violent goons dressed as guards and rogue unrestrained Defendants, she had to flee the property for security reasons with her child. The Affiant deponed that she prayed the Honourable Court grant a restriction order against the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants from entering the suit property 783/Diani Beach Road/Kwale, failing which the property was no longer safe for them to live in.xxix.Illegal building works continued on the 2nd Defendant’s property on Sunday, 18th May, 2025 in violation of all laws and orders, as confirmed by the neighboring property known as “Governors,” which also complained about the noise.xxx.The intention of the Defendants was clearly to present the Honourable Court with a fait accompli and hope to get away with it. The Affiant deponed that the 2nd Defendant’s intention appeared to be to complete illegal work on her property in violation of the Lease and possibly claim she was away and did not know of any illegality. The Affiant stated that the Defendants intended to violate the Orders of the Court with impunity and get away with it on the basis that the work had already been done and facts on the ground changed.The Affiant argued that to get her way the 2nd Defendant often used violence, punishment acts, and thuggery against her, encouraged her staff to act violently and be goons, and appeared to believe that her money, support from the equally notorious, law‑breaking and violent 4th and 5th Defendants—who intermeddled and acted illegally—together with employees who were violent, vicious and willing to act illegally, was enough to secure what she wanted. The Affiant stated that in short, the 2nd Defendant did not care one wit for the laws of Kenya or the rights of others. All this impunity was based on the assumption that the 2nd – 8th Defendants would have time and means to get away with the illegal and unlawful acts.xxxi.The County Planning Department had refused, by email dated 19th May, 2025, to stop the illegal construction on the basis that the matter “was in court” and placed the entire burden of enforcement on the Plaintiffs instead of exercising their own mandate, thereby allowing the Defendants time to complete their illegal works which were now almost fully completed. Attached and marked as “AK – 20” was the email from the Planning Department.xxxii.This impunity by the Defendants was secured by the knowledge that the Defendants had placed their goons and security companies obedient to them—Crest Security—after firing SGA who was professional and refused to obstruct other owners. The Affiant argued that these guards and Crest acted on the instructions of the Defendants while pretending they were common to all owners, but in reality they were hired goons of the 2nd and 4th – 5th Defendants who weaponized them. The Affiant deponed that this meant she walked daily into a property hijacked by the 2nd Defendant and run like a mafia enterprise. The Affiant stated that the guards were not there to protect all owners from intruders but to obey one owner, the 2nd Defendant, and the 4th – 5th Defendants who were claiming their step‑mother’s property using a fraudulent affidavit.The Affiant averred that on a day‑to‑day basis this mafia enterprise was run by the 6th and 7th Defendants for their bosses, the 2nd and 4th – 5th Defendants.xxxiii.In addition to the above, the damage to the environment, which was a habitat for endangered species, was extensive and continued to create another fait accompli.xxxiv.The 7th Defendant had accosted visitors invited by her and demanded to know who they were, followed them in the common areas, harassed them and photographed them. The Affiant argued that the 6th Defendant had repeatedly and at length continued to harass, abuse, deter and threaten cleaners and repair workers attending her property, including a cleaner named Cynthia who worked for her while her staff was on leave. The Affiant deponed that Cynthia stated the 6th Defendant accosted her at the entrance, harassed her, told her not to come to the house, that she would not be paid, that the Affiant was a bad person, and that she should leave immediately.The Affiant stated that the 6th Defendant further told Cynthia that if she continued to work for her she should not tell her what had been said. The Affiant averred that the 6th Defendant repeated the same to plumbers fixing her water pipes, and some of them failed to return to complete work. When asked why, they said the 6th Defendant told them the Affiant was a lawyer who would take them to court and jail them if anything they did was wrong, and then further slandered and abused her at length.xxxv.The Plaintiffs would have had no quiet enjoyment or peace if the 6th Defendant, an employee of the 2nd Defendant who habitually lied and acted illegally, continued to be permitted to remain in the suit premises where she acted like a mini‑dictator together with the newly arrived 7th Defendant, her close friend. The Affiant deponed that both had accosted staff and officials entering the property, both were abusive, disrespectful and engaged in criminal conduct appearing for their foreign owners as proxies drunk on power and abusive of their position. The Affiant stated that their grotesque actions were escalating and worsening as they were not restrained, and further, they were enraged at their inclusion in these proceedings and appeared to feel that if only they could somehow remove or attack and scare her away, all their problems would stop and they could continue their illegal and unlawful acts unrestrained.xxxvi.Each and every step the 6th and 7th Defendants had not been held to account for their actions and neither had their employers, the 2nd and 4th – 5th Defendants. This had emboldened them to become a mafia‑type rogue outfit that acted with complete and absolute impunity and denied her justice and quiet enjoyment of her property.xxxvii.The contempt of the Order of the Honourable Court was done deliberately, knowingly and in complete defiance of the Order of the Court and with impunity to allow the 2nd Defendant to abuse her position as director of the 1st Defendant and to harass, punish and intimidate her for bringing the suit and holding them to account for their illegal actions.xxxviii.In fact, and for complete clarity, the Defendants violated her constitutional right to a fair hearing and justice and knowingly, violently and deliberately violated the laws of the Republic of Kenya with absolute impunity and in bad faith.xxxix.She remained in fear for her life, safety and rights and sought the urgent assistance of the Honourable Court as she believed the Defendants were capable of great harm, violence, murder and other such tactics and used force to change her behaviour and force her to leave her property.xl.She placed before the Court the obligation to prevent harm to children and vulnerable persons and highlighted the continuing and unrestrained violations of the Orders by the Defendants. She humbly sought the urgent and immediate protection of the Court, requested through her Advocate, by way of a restraining order prohibiting the 6th Defendant, 7th Defendant and 8th Defendant from entering the suit premises, given their capacity for violence and illegal acts that they continued on a daily basis.xli.It was clearly not possible for her family to have any quiet enjoyment of their property unless the aforementioned Defendants were restrained from entering the suit premises.xlii.These orders were extremely urgent as, while a hearing was to take place on 29th May, 2025, the Defendants could, had, and would do immense and irreparable damage between the date of the application and the matter being before the Honourable Court. The Affiant deponed that therefore these orders, and an order that OCS Diani Police Station enforce the Orders of the Honourable Court and act on open OBs, were of necessity as each day, including Sunday, caused unrestrained harm.xliii.She no longer had quiet enjoyment of her property and that her constitutional right to justice and a fair hearing was being violated on a daily basis.xliv.The actions of the Defendants were a clear illustration of their continuing utter disregard for Court processes, orders of Lead State Agencies, and the rule of law, and that they acted with impunity seeking to present the Court with a fait accompli.xlv.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that the Defendants’ conduct undermined the authority and dignity of the Honourable Court as they were personally aware of the orders of the Court and had neither sought to have the same appealed against and had instead continually escalated their defiance.xlvi.The advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that it was in the interest of justice that the Defendants be cited for contempt for frustrating the orders of the Honourable Court, thus bringing the Court into disrepute, and to seek a restraining order prohibiting the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants from entering the property pending determination of the suit.xlvii.She swore the affidavit in support of her application for the orders sought pending the hearing and determination of the case.VIII.The response to the Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025 19.In opposition to the Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025, the Defendants/Respondents filed a 37 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn by ELIZABETH SOMMES, Director and Shareholder of the 1st Defendant and the lawful representative of the Defendants/ Respondents on 16th June, 2025 where she reiterated as follows:-a.She was the 2nd Defendant/Respondent herein, a unit owner, Director and shareholder of the 1st Defendant.b.She had the authority of the other Defendants/Respondents herein to swear the affidavit and was therefore competent to swear the affidavit.c.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true, that the Plaintiffs/Applicants filed an application dated 19th May, 2025.d.The orders sought were contained from Paragraphs 2–11 of the Notice of Motion application.e.The Affiant stated that she was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true, that the 2nd Applicant made very serious and/or grave allegations of assault against the Respondents.f.As the primary method of proving the alleged assault in the Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025, the 2nd Applicant relied on hearsay evidence.g.The said hearsay evidence was contained in Paragraphs 11, 18, 21, 23, 24, 27, 28 and 35 of the supporting affidavit sworn by the 2nd Applicant dated 19th May, 2025.h.The statements contained in those paragraphs of the supporting affidavit were hearsay as they purported to report what a third party allegedly said.i.Without those persons appearing in court as witnesses or swearing affidavits of their own, there was no way for either the Respondents or the Court to test the truth of the statements.j.Unless those persons appeared in court as witnesses or swore their own affidavits, then the statements offended the rules of evidence and were inadmissible.k.The 2nd Applicant hastily moved the Court and filed three (3) applications in rapid succession, each portraying herself as a helpless victim.l.However, the 2nd Applicant had not been candid with the Honourable Court, had deliberately concealed material facts, and had therefore approached the Court with unclean hands.m.On or about 18th March, 2025, a heated exchange occurred between Mr. Borgnis Desbordes and the 2nd Applicant. The Affiant deponed that this altercation arose from the 2nd Applicant’s continued violation of the by‑laws by parking in an area clearly marked “NO PARKING.” This was despite the Respondents having graciously allowed her to continue parking in her designated spot notwithstanding her failure to pay service charge.n.When Mr. Desbordes raised the issue, the 2nd Applicant justified her conduct by citing the Court order dated 11th March, 2025, despite the order having no bearing on her obligation to comply with the estate by‑laws.o.As the confrontation escalated, the 2nd Applicant intentionally released her dog on Mr. Desbordes.p.Ironically, it was the same security guards whom the 2nd Applicant later accused of viciously assaulting her, who intervened and ultimately rescued Mr. Desbordes from further harm.q.The incident was promptly reported to the Directorate of Criminal Investigations (DCI) in Msambweni, and witness statements were recorded. Copies of the said statements were annexed for ease of reference.r.Unlike the 2nd Applicant’s evidence, which was filled with hearsay, the Respondents relied on direct eyewitness accounts duly recorded by competent authorities.s.Being fully aware of her culpability in the assault, the 2nd Applicant hurriedly filed the Application dated 20th March, 2025 in a calculated attempt to pre‑empt the Respondents and distort the narrative by falsely alleging that she was the victim of an assault by Mr. Desbordes and the security guards.t.The Respondents had duly addressed the irregularity and invalidity of the court order issued on 11th March, 2025 vide the Replying Affidavit dated the 16th June, 2025.u.Notwithstanding the foregoing, the said status quo order only applied to the common areas, which were the subject matter of the present dispute.v.The applicability of that Order could not, and had not, been extended to the private cottage or residence of the 2nd Respondent, which was not in contention in the proceedings.w.Without conceding, that the 2nd Applicant’s allegations regarding non‑compliance with certain National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA) and National Construction Authority (NCA) requirements were true, the alleged construction activities were confined exclusively to the 2nd Respondent’s private cottage and/or residence.x.It could not reasonably be argued that the said construction works amounted to a violation of the court order dated 11th March, 2025.y.Therefore, that the allegations of regulatory non‑compliance were improperly placed before the Honourable Court.z.The Environmental Management and Coordination Act (EMCA) established the office of the Environmental Inspector, who was duly empowered to investigate and prosecute environmental offences before a court of competent jurisdiction.aa.The acts complained of, being outside the scope of the court order, fell within the jurisdiction of the Environmental Inspector. The Affiant argued that if indeed the said acts violated EMCA, then it was for the appropriate statutory body to take enforcement action before the proper forum.ab.Some of the notices and/or warnings relied on by the 2nd Applicant were issued prior to the institution of the present suit and some were based on misleading and falsified information supplied by the 2nd Applicant.ac.In support of this position, the County Planning Department declined to halt the construction works after being informed that the dispute was now before the Court, a material fact the 2nd Applicant failed to disclose when lodging her complaint with the said Department.ad.Notably, the 2nd Applicant herself admitted this fact at paragraph 32 of her supporting affidavit of even date.ae.The 2nd Applicant’s credibility was already in serious doubt. The issues raised in this context were nothing more than diversionary tactics, intended to distract the Court from the true subject of the dispute, which was whether the 2nd Applicant had been making service charge payments. The Affiant deponed that this was the central issue underpinning both the present application for interlocutory relief and the substantive reliefs sought in the Plaint.af.The 1st Applicant had not sought any specific reliefs in the present application. The Affiant averred that in any event, the Respondents did not oppose the grant of injunctive reliefs in favour of the 1st Applicant, should the Court deem them appropriate.ag.The Respondents were not opposed to a site visit by the Honourable Court.ah.The 2nd Applicant stood on entirely different footing. The Affiant argued that she had approached the Honourable Court with unclean hands, having assaulted a fellow resident within the premises, consistently failed to pay service charge in violation of her obligations, and deliberately misrepresented and concealed material facts in the proceedings with different government authorities including the police.ai.It was a well‑settled principle that equity did not aid those who sought its protection through deceit.aj.In the circumstances, the 2nd Applicant was not deserving of the reliefs sought in the present application, and respectfully urged the Court to dismiss the present application with costs. IX. The Notice of Motion application dated 15th July, 2025 20.The Application was brought under the provision of Orders 51 Rule 1, Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the Law. 21.The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought the following orders:a.Spentb.Interim restraining orders issued as a matter of urgency against the 6th Defendant Stella Nyabuti and 7th Defendant Leah Wanjiku preventing them from entering Plot 783/ Diani Beacg/ Kwale County or approaching the Plaintiffs pending a hearing on this Application and preventing the Defendants from accessing, in person, by proxy, through electronic means the 2nd Plaintiff’s property without knowledge and consent.c.The Defendants herein be cited for contempt of this Hon. Court following its willful continued, repeated and escalating disobedience of the orders of this Hon. Court issue on 11th March, 2025 and further exasperated by the Defendants failure to have regard to the seriousness of the matter as set out in the Order dated 24th March, 2025 of this Hon. Court.d.The Defendants cease interference with the water supply of the 2nd Plaintiff, the installation of an underground pipe from the 2nd Plaintiff’s house under the common area to the 2nd Plaintiffs water supply in the next title known as ‘Governors’ and water tank storage installation in the 2nd Plaintiff’s water which are essential to restore free flowing water to the 2nd Plaintiff.e.OCS Diani enforce all orders of this Honourable Court in the suit.f.Costs of this application be provided.g.Costs of the water tank and labour required due to the Defendants cutting off the 2nd Plaintiff’s water access and preventing the 2nd Plaintiff from installing a private water meter or pipes to a neighbouring property.h.Such damages including exemplary and punitive damages against the Defendants as the Honourable Court deems appropriate in the suit. 22.The application was premised on the grounds, facts, and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 29 Paragraphed annexed affidavit of ASHMINDER KAUR, the 2nd Plaintiff, sworn on the same day, wherein it was averred that:a.She was aware that on 11th March, 2025, the Honourable Court had issued an order that status quo be maintained of property TITLE NUMBER KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783. Attached and marked as “AK – 1” was a copy of the Court order.b.On 25th March, 2025 the Honourable Court had issued an order further to a certificate of urgency in relation to a contempt application against the Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 2” was a copy of the second Court order.c.She was aware the Defendants had been served with a copy of the Court Order on 17th March, 2025 and she had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.d.Instead of complying with the Order, the Defendants immediately and knowingly breached it and continued their vicious campaign against her, escalating the same and remaining in continuing and knowing breach of the Orders.e.The Defendants had failed to repair her water pipes cut by the Defendants in the 3rd Defendant’s garden, had prevented her from installing a private water meter and laying water pipes under the common areas to her neighbour’s property in the adjacent title to access water, in order to extort money from her and punish her for bringing the suit and exposing that 8 out of 14 houses they claimed were in the Title were in fact on public and riparian land and neighbouring titles. The Affiant deponed that the exposure of this fact had caused the Defendants immense and violent fury.f.She was deeply distressed and alarmed that the 2nd and 7th Defendants’ EIA Consultant, Fred Ojijo Omondi, appeared instructed by the 2nd and 7th Defendants on 15th July, 2025 to impersonate a NEMA official in order to gain information and access to her home and to deceive and intimidate her staff and herself.g.Around noon on 15th July, 2025 she was told by her employee, Bonfas Nandwa, that Omondi had informed him he was a NEMA official. Nandwa, who had left the house, returned and informed her that - NEMA was there outside and wanted to see her.h.In the belief that NEMA officials were at her house to see her, she left the house and went to the gate to meet them. At the gate she found a man who identified himself as Fred Omondi.i.She became aware that Omondi was fraudulently claiming to be a NEMA official and impersonating a NEMA officer to try to gain access to her property and deceive and intimidate her staff and herself. She was aware that the 2nd Defendant had hired an EIA Consultant of the same name. She had not met him in person before but they had communicated on phone and email.j.Omondi claimed he knew she was constructing a sewerage tank and that sewerage tanks required permission from authorities. This was false as she was not constructing any sewerage tank and the allegation constituted yet more outright lies in relation to herself, the source of which she believed was the 7th Defendant, who was the manager of the 2nd and 8th Defendants.k.She refused to engage with Omondi and told him to leave her property. He refused to leave and continued demanding that she confirm she was building a sewerage tank and tried to gain access until she told him she intended to report him and demanded he leave. He left laughing.l.On leaving her gate, Omondi then entered the 2nd Defendant’s property located behind her house known as Carudie, where he was heard loudly laughing and talking.m.She advised her staff member, Nandwa, that Omondi was not a genuine NEMA official and called NEMA Kwale to double‑check the same. NEMA Kwale confirmed Omondi was not an employee or officer of NEMA and that NEMA stated he was a “con‑man.” She was advised to always ask for identity documents from anyone claiming to be a NEMA official.n.Around 4.00pm that day two NEMA officials known to her as Ms. Edith Kalo and her colleague had attended her property stating they had been told—falsely—that she was building and digging next to the wall of a neighbour. The Affiant stated that after a discussion they requested her to consult her right‑sided neighbour on her water tank installation, and she noted that she did not know that new owner who was not in residence.o.She raised the matter of Omondi impersonating a NEMA official with Ms. Kalo and wrote letter complaints to NEMA, which she sent to NEMA Kwale and NEMA Nairobi by email. Attached and marked as “AK – 3” was a copy of the letter complaint to NEMA.p.She consulted the neighbour’s contractor known as Wafula, who said he saw no issue with the tank installation and advised her that he had been falsely informed by the “manager”—the 6th or 7th Defendant—that she was digging a hole next to her ocean‑facing neighbour’s house known as Spring, which could destabilise the walls. In reality she was installing a tank in the centre of her garden at a location known to Wafula, which was not anywhere near the wall of that said neighbour. This misinformation from the Defendants was mischief‑making and deliberate falsehood intended to mislead and incite conflict between her and the new owner of Spring, and to try to counterfoil the substantial illegality of the Defendants’ own acts by slinging mud and hoping it would stick.q.She understood from communications with Denham Vickers, a friend of the new owner of the cottage known as Spring, that the 6th or 7th Defendants, the “managers,” had been covertly filming inside the private courtyard of her property, likely from the neighbouring house Spring, without her knowledge or consent, and sending pictures to the new owner falsely claiming she was digging next to his wall and could destroy his wall’s structure.r.The Defendants themselves, having violated stop orders from NEMA and NCA in relation to construction of the 2nd Defendant’s properties and continued and completed their illegal building on the 2nd Defendant’s houses, were now seeking to harass and intimidate her for digging a few feet of hole in her garden to replace an old water tank with a new larger one. The Affiant argued that this was because the Defendants had cut off all other means of her access to water in an attempt to force her to pay money to the private bank account of the 6th Defendant, a stranger to her, whose employment papers and authority to act in the Title she had requested but not seen.s.The Defendants continued to destroy her quiet enjoyment, violate her rights, mislead and provide false information in bad faith, and undertake unlawful activity with complete and absolute impunity.t.The 2nd Defendant continued to abuse her position as a director of the 1st Defendant to benefit herself and cover and protect her extensive unlawful conduct in the Title and that of the other Defendants.u.The 6th and 7th Defendants were key perpetrators on the ground of these vicious acts against her, and their dishonesty, violence, malicious slander and illegal acts continually destroyed the peace of the compound and could only be stopped by restraining them from entry into the property 783/Diani Beach Road/Kwale, whose leasehold was held by the 1st Defendant.v.She no longer had quiet enjoyment of her property and that the Defendants continued to escalate their criminal acts with complete and absolute impunity.w.She was deeply alarmed that persons employed by the 2nd Defendant were impersonating NEMA officials on the Defendants’ instructions in order to gain information and access to her staff, herself, and her property, and that her right to access water and right to install a water tank in her garden was still being interfered with, as well as her right to obtain free‑flowing water by installing a permanent underground pipe through the common area to connect with her water supply source in the next title, which had been unreasonably and irrationally obstructed by the Defendants.x.She was appalled and deeply aggrieved that the Orders of the Honourable Court were being continually and repeatedly ignored by the Defendants.y.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that the Defendants’ conduct undermined the authority and dignity of the Honourable Court as they were personally aware of the orders of the Court and had neither sought to have the same appealed against and had instead continually escalated their defiance.z.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that it was in the interest of justice that the Defendants be cited for contempt for frustrating the orders of the Honourable Court, thus bringing the Court into disrepute, and to seek a restraining order prohibiting the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants from entering the property pending determination of the suit.aa. She swore the affidavit in support of her application for the interim orders sought pending the hearing and determination of the case, and sought urgent interim restraining orders against the 6th and 7th Defendants, together with orders that her right to access water and have free‑flowing water as required under the Lease be maintained.X. The Response to the Notice of Motion application dated 15th July, 2025 23.In opposition to the Notice of Motion application dated 15th July, 2025, the Defendants/Respondents filed an 11 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn by ELIZABETH SOMMES, Director and Shareholder of the 1st Defendant and the lawful representative of the Defendants/Respondents on 20th August, 2025 where she reiterated as follows that:-a.She had the authority of the other Defendants/Respondents herein to swear the affidavit and was therefore competent to swear the affidavit.b.The 2nd and 7th Defendants were strangers to the allegations contained in the Application dated 15th July, 2025.c.She was advised by her advocates, whose advice she verily believed to be true, that the Application disclosed no specific act or omission attributable to either the 2nd or 7th Defendants that warranted the grant of any restraining orders against them.d.There were no particulars or evidence linking the said Defendants to the alleged wrongs, nor did the supporting documents mention or refer to them at all.e.On this ground alone, the present Application was misconceived, devoid of merit, amounted to an abuse of the Court process, and was a waste of both the Court’s and the Defendants’ time.f.In response to the allegations of contempt, she was advised by her advocates, whose advice she verily believed to be true, that the Court order the Applicant wished to rely on was invalid. Despite the defects of the said order being brought to the attention of both the Court and the Applicant, no step had been taken to seek correction thereof.g.She was further advised, and verily believed to be true, that in any event it was in fact the Applicant who was in contempt of Court, and not the Defendants as alleged. The Court order had directed the preservation of the status quo specifically in relation to the common areas of the property.h.The lease agreement under which the Applicant derived title to her cottage expressly prohibited any works or structural alterations to the common areas without the prior consent of the Lessor.i.In blatant breach of both the Court order and the terms of the Lease Agreement, the Applicant had proceeded to undertake construction of an underground water tank, as she expressly admitted in her Supporting Affidavit sworn in support of the Application dated 15th July, 2025. Annexed and marked as “ES – 1” was a photograph serving as evidence of the construction works.j.By willfully concealing her acts of contempt and breach of the Lease Agreement, the Applicant had approached the Honourable Court with unclean hands and was thereby undeserving of the equitable reliefs sought in the present Application. XI. The Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025 24.The Application was brought under the provision of Orders 51 Rule 1, Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 3A and 3B of the Civil Procedure Act Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya and all other enabling provisions of the Law. 25.The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought the following orders:a.Spent.b.Interim restraining orders issued as a matter of urgency against:i.The Defendants, their employees and proxies restraining them from damaging or interfering the Plaintiff's water pipes and property when the 2nd Plaintiff is pumping water from the 2nd Plaintiff's neighbour Dirk Erkhoff located in LR KWALE/ DIANI BEACH / 889 noting all other water sources have and remain blocked by the Defendants.ii.The 6th and 7th Defendants and the Defendants Guard preventing then from entering LR KWALE / DIANI BEACH/ 783 or approaching the Plaintiffs or their property pending a hearing on this Application and all OB’s and charges filed against them at Diani Police Station and DCI Mombasa have been investigated and concluded.c.The Defendants herein be cited for contempt of this Hon. court following its willful continued, repeated and escalating disobedience of the orders of this Hon. Court issue on 11th March, 2025 and further exasperated by the Defendants failure to have regard to the seriousness of the matter as set out in the Orders dated 24th March, 2025 and 24th July, 2025 of this Hon. Court and that penal orders are made against the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants.d.A permanent injunction be issued against the Defendants, their employees and proxies restraining them, their emloyees and their proxies from accessing or damaging the Plaintiff's water pipes, property, person, family, vehicles or guests.e.The Director of Criminal Investigation investigate and report within 14 days on whether the 2nd Defendant was in Diani, Kenya on 20th July, 2025.f.The Director of Criminal Investigations investigate all outstanding OB’s filed by the Plaintiffs against any of the Defendants within 30 days.g.The 2nd Defendant provide a copy of her original passport for inspection by the Plaintiff’s Advocates.h.OCS Diani enforce all Orders of this Honourable Court in the suit.i.Costs of this application be provided.j.Costs of a replacement water pipe and additional securityk.Such damages including exemplary and punitive damages against the Defendants as the Honourable Court deems appropriate in the suit. 26.The application was premised on the grounds, facts, and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 27 Paragraphed annexed affidavit of ASHMINDER KAUR, the 2nd Plaintiff, sworn on the same day, wherein it was averred that:a.She was aware that on 11th March, 2025, the Honourable Court had issued an order that status quo be maintained of property TITLE NUMBER KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783. Attached and marked as “AK – 1” was a copy of the Court order.b.On 25th March, 2025 the Honourable Court had issued an order further to a certificate of urgency in relation to a contempt application against the Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 2” was a copy of the second Court order.c.She was aware the Defendants had been served with a copy of the Court Order on 17th March, 2025 and she had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.d.On 24th July, 2025 the Honourable Court had issued an order further to a certificate of urgency in relation to a contempt application against the 6th and 7th Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 3” was a copy of the third Court order.e.She was aware the Defendants had been served with a copy of the Court Order through their Advocates and she had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.f.Instead of complying with the Orders, the Defendants had continued their vicious campaign against her, escalated the same, and were currently in continuing and knowing breach of the Orders.g.On 3rd September, 2025, while she was in Nairobi, she was contacted by her security company and her staff member, Khadija Epifania Omari, who informed her that her water pipe had been cut in three places by Habakuk Onyango Opande (“Defendants’ Guard”), a security guard employed by the Defendants.h.Severing of the water pipe had completely destroyed her only water source, as the Defendants (i) had cut her permanent water pipes which she could not repair as they were cut in the 3rd Defendant’s garden, and (ii) had prevented Kwale Water from installing a water meter for her property by the 6th and 7th Defendants threatening them, stating that the common areas belonged only to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and that they would act against Kwale Water if they installed a meter for her. The Affiant deponed that the water hose pipe had been laid from her house across the common garden area to pump water from her neighbour, Mr. Dirk Erkhoff, located in LR No. KWALE/DIANI BEACH/889, to fill her water tanks.i.On 4th September, 2025 Ms. Omari had sent her an image of the cut pipe sections which were then in custody of Diani Police Station. The Affiant averred that it was clear this was not an accidental cut but a deliberate, calculated, savage, violent and malicious severing of three sections of her water pipe. Attached and marked as “AK – 4” was a copy of the image, and the original pipe sections were held at Diani Police Station.j.The OB Number 69 of 04/09/25 had been filed at Diani Police Station in relation to the malicious damage to her water pipe by the Defendants’ Guard. Attached and marked as “AK – 5” was a copy of the OB.k.On 8th September, 2025 the Defendants’ Guard had been arrested and charged, and the Charge Sheet of Diani Police Station, Kwale County, stated the offence as “Malicious Damage to Property Contrary to Section 339(1) of the Penal Code.” Attached and marked as “AK – 6” was a copy of the Charge Sheet.l.The Defendants had retained the Defendants’ Guard despite previous OBs filed against him and the Defendants, his assault of her, and his being a suspect in the slashing of her vehicle tires.m.The Defendants’ Guard was usually seated at the entrance to the residential section of the property and had consistently harassed her and her visitors. He was a known threat and nuisance to her, willing to act violently on behalf of his employers. She believed he had been encouraged, rewarded, and retained by the Defendants because of his willingness to be violent and ruthless against her, her property, and her interests. That he was clearly their proxy and the person they relied on to do the dirty work they did not want to do directly themselves. That this had severely damaged her peace of mind and destroyed her quiet enjoyment of her property knowingly, calculatedly, and deliberately by the Defendants, who acted jointly in lock‑step to execute their vile, calculated, ruthless campaign against her after she exposed their economic fraud, land fraud, creation of fraudulent documents, and grabbing of public and private land, which was now under investigation by DCI Headquarters.n.For this reason she pleaded with the Honourable Court through her Advocate to restrain the 6th and 7th Defendants and the Defendants’ Guard from entering the property and to impose on the Defendants penal consequences restraining their liberty, as they had and continued to discard the orders of the Honourable Court with impunity and would not be deterred without penal sentences.o.The 6th and 7th Defendants, who were their masters’ hands and voices and also in their own right potentially more ruthless, abusive and dishonest bad actors, were the day‑to‑day managers of the Defendants’ Guard. The Affiant deponed that they had attended Diani Police Station with him and sought to protect him at every turn, and she was advised by her security company that they had attended Court on 11th September, 2025 in support of him and paid for Advocate George Mungai Kamau to intercede with the ODPP to prevent his prosecution. Instead of protecting her as an owner, they had done everything in their power to obtain a release for the Defendants’ Guard, who had acted with violence against her and her property repeatedly on behalf of the Defendants and who consistently harassed her and her staff. The Affiant averred that this violated the obligations under the Lease to provide her with security and quiet enjoyment and showed they were fully vested in the actions of the Defendants’ Guard.p.Up to the time she left Diani on 25th August, 2025, the 2nd, 4th and 5th Defendants were not present at the property.q.She had pleaded with the Honourable Court through her Advocates to restrain the 6th and 7th Defendants, and the Honourable Court had in fact issued the order dated 24th July, 2025 which stated that the 6th and 7th Defendants should not interfere with her water access and pipes. The Affiant averred that as the Honourable Court could see, the Defendants’ Guard had clearly done so, and she submitted that it was not likely that the Defendants did not know what their guard was doing. The 6th and 7th Defendants, who always acted in concert together, would certainly have been involved, as evidenced by their strenuous efforts to release the Defendants’ Guard from jail further to his arrest and their intervention with the ODPP so the charge could not be registered.r.She was advised by DCI Mombasa that the 6th Defendant had no power of attorney, no employment letter, and no letter showing any authority of the 6th Defendant to be in that property, and had failed, despite their requests, to provide any documentation after claiming she had a power of attorney to manage the property.s.The 6th Defendant together with the 4th and 5th Defendants had intermeddled in the estate of the 3rd Defendant, probate was ongoing, and prior to even filing for probate they had cut her water pipes, blocked her parking, violently assaulted her, and abused and humiliated her publicly and in front of her young child.t.As such she requested that the 6th Defendant be prevented from access to the property as she was in repeated contempt and was the key instigator of violence, fraud, lies and deceit. The Affiant stated that the 6th Defendant instructed Advocate George Mungai Kamau and had produced with him entirely fictitious and fraudulent documents, acted repeatedly with him to frustrate the investigation and prosecution of OBs filed by her, and also harassed and bullied her staff.u.The 7th Defendant was employed in the property by the 8th Defendant; however, she had repeatedly acted in contempt, lied consistently, was violent and abusive, and it was not feasible that the Defendants’ Guard would slash her pipes without the direct instruction of the 7th Defendant, who was his direct boss on a day‑to‑day basis.v.She was appalled and deeply aggrieved that the Orders of the Honourable Court were being continually and repeatedly ignored by the Defendants.w.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that the Defendants’ conduct continually and in an escalating brazen manner undermined the authority and dignity of the Honourable Court as they were personally aware of the orders of the Court and had neither sought to have the same appealed against and had instead continually escalated their defiance.x.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that it was in the interest of justice that the Defendants be cited for contempt for frustrating the orders of the Honourable Court, thus bringing the Court into disrepute, and to seek a restraining order prohibiting the 6th, 7th Defendants and the Defendants’ Guard from entering the property pending determination of the suit.y.She swore the affidavit in support of her application for the interim orders sought pending the hearing and determination of the case, and sought urgent interim restraining orders against the Defendants’ interference with her water supply and interim orders restraining the 6th and 7th Defendants and the Defendants’ Guard from entering the property, as they repeatedly violated orders of the Honourable Court and were not restrained by the same. She also sought orders that her right to access water and have free‑flowing water as required under the Lease be maintained. XII. The Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025 27.The Application was brought under the provision of Order 40 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 3A and 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and all other enabling provisions of the Law and Article 159 (2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. 28.The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought the following orders:-a.Spent.b.That the order of this Honourable Court issued on 11th March, 2025 be amended to correct the date of the Certificate of Urgency and Notice of Motion applications from 10th March, 2025 to 18th February, 2025c.That the costs of this Application be provided for. 29.The application was premised on the grounds, facts, and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 12 Paragraphed annexed affidavit of ASHMINDER KAUR, the 2nd Plaintiff, sworn on the same day, wherein she averred that:a.She was the 2nd Plaintiff/Applicant herein, and was fully conversant with the facts this application and hence competent to make the Affidavit.b.On 11th March, 2025, this Honourable Court issued a status quo order pursuant to the Plaintiffs’ certificate of urgency and Notice of Motion applications dated 18th February, 2025. (the “Order”). Attached in the affidavit and marked as “AK – 1” was a copy of the Court order.c.The said order was duly served on the Defendants, who had knowledge of its contents and a return of service was duly filed in court.d.The order contained a minor and non – substantive error at paragraph 2, where it stated that the date of the applications was 10th March, 2025 instead of 18th February, 2025.“UPON keen perusal of the Certificate of Urgency and the Notice of Motion applications dated 10th March, 2025 by the Plaintiffs/ Applicants brought under the dint of the provision of Order 40; Order 51 Rules 1 & 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; Sections 3A & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21; accompanied by 30 paragraphed Supporting Affidavit of MARCO GASPORINI sworn and dated even date together with two (2) annextures marked as “MG1 1 & 2” annexed thereof.e.She had recently had sight off the Replying Affidavit of the Defendants dated 16th June, 2025 which was not served on the Plaintiffs despite the express the express directions of this Honourable Court that Defendants serve the Plaintiffs.f.In the Replying Affidavit, the Defendants made substantive responses to the Plaintiffs’ contempt applications and acknowledge being aware that the correct date of the applications should have been 18th February, 2025, confirming that no confusion or injustice was caused to them by the error.g.The Defendant had not filed any application to set aside the order based on this minor clerical error.h.It appeared that the minor error arose due to a clerical mistake arising as 10th March, 2025 was the date on which the application was transferred to this Honourable Court from the High Court and therefore the date it was electronically registered on the system of the Environment and Land Court at Kwale County.i.Rectification of the order under the provision of Sections 3A and/or 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 would not cause any injustice or prejudice to the Defendants.j.Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya required that the Court to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities and this Application was made to prevent injustice to the Plaintiffs in an instance where there is no significant prejudice to the Defendants and where the Defendants expressly state they were not only aware of the nature of the error but aware of the correct date of the Application.k.The statements were true to the best of their knowledge, information and belief. XIII. The Response to the Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025 30.In opposition to the Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025, the Defendants/Respondents filed a 24 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn by JAMES OWINO, the advocate having the conduct of this suit on behalf of the Respondents on 28th October, 2025 where he reiterated as follows that:-a.The provision of Section 108 of the Penal Code criminalized perjury, knowingly giving false testimony before a court of law.b.The provision of Section 112A of the Penal Code further criminalized the deliberate provision of false or misleading information to a public authority or officer.c.From the foregoing, it was a criminal offence to knowingly give false testimony or mislead the Court.d.The Applicants had filed a Further Replying Affidavit dated 16th October, 2025.e.At Paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, the Applicants had falsely alleged that the Respondents’ Replying Affidavit dated 16th June, 2025 was never served upon them or their advocates, contrary to the record and the Court’s directions.f.The said Replying Affidavit had been duly served upon the Applicants’ advocates, who acknowledged service by stamping and signing on the face of the affidavit. Annexed and marked as “ES ‑ 1” was a true copy of the Replying Affidavit bearing the Applicants’ advocates’ acknowledgment stamp and signature.g.The Applicants’ denial of service was therefore false, made in bad faith, and a deliberate attempt to mislead the Honourable Court.h.The Applicants had filed their Further Replying Affidavit dated 16th October, 2025 and served the same on 22nd October, 2025, a mere seven (7) days to the date of the scheduled ruling, and without any leave or explanation.i.The said action was done in bad faith and with the clear intent of ambushing the Respondents.j.The timing and contents of the said Further Replying Affidavit clearly showed that the Applicants acted only after realizing that the Respondents’ Replying Affidavit of 16th June, 2025 had exposed critical weaknesses in their application.k.Among the weaknesses highlighted in the said Replying Affidavit were:a.The defectiveness of the Court Order the Applicants relied on; andb.The absence of a P3 - form, despite the 2nd Applicant’s grave allegations of assault.l.Having failed to comply with the Court’s directions and realizing that their case was fatally defective, the Applicants fabricated the claim that they were never served, to justify filing a response four months later.m.The Applicants’ claim regarding a P3 - form allegedly filed at Diani Police Station remained wholly unsupported by evidence, as no such document had ever been produced in Court seven (7) months after the filing of their application.n.It was trite law that a document not produced before the Court could not be relied upon as evidence; hence, the Applicants’ unverified assertions on the existence of a P3 form were of no probative value.o.The Applicants had similarly sought, through their inordinately late response, to cure the defectiveness of the Court Order on which their application was founded.p.In furtherance of this, the Applicants had filed an application dated 12th September, 2025, seeking to have the defective order amended.q.The said application was filed inordinately late and in blatant disregard of the Court’s timelines and directions. The Applicants’ attempt to “correct” the same only confirmed the defective nature of the original Court Order.r.Without the false allegation that the Respondents’ Replying Affidavit had never been served, the Applicants’ actions and application would have had no legal basis and would have been struck out for being out of time.s.In view of the foregoing, it was evident that the Applicants’ Further Replying Affidavit dated 16th October, 2025 had been filed with the sole intent of misleading the Court, curing fatal defects in their earlier pleadings, and unfairly prejudicing the Respondents.t.Despite obtaining urgent audience of the Court, the Applicants had failed to prosecute their application within the timelines directed by the Court and had further neglected to file submissions in support of their application.u.Such conduct demonstrated that the Applicants were not serious in prosecuting their application and their inaction defeated the very basis upon which urgency had been pleaded.v.Consequently, the said application was an abuse of the Court process and ought to have been dismissed with costs for want of prosecution and lack of seriousness on the part of the Applicants. She therefore urged the Honourable Court to disregard the Applicants’ Further Replying Affidavit in its entirety, as it was tainted with bad faith, filed out of time, and anchored on deliberate falsehoods. XIV. The Notice of Motion application dated 11th February, 2026 (A) 31.The Application was brought under the provision Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law. 32.The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought the following orders:-a.Spentb.There be a judicial site visit to the Applicant’s property Sawa Sawa Cottage Warandale and LR No. KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783 in relation to the construction of walls on and adjacent to the Applicants property by the Respondents and the Applicant’s water supply, its obstruction and severance by the Respondents.c.Costs of this application be provided in the suit. 33.The application was premised on the grounds, facts, and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 18 Paragraphed annexed affidavit of ASHMINDER KAUR, the 2nd Plaintiff, sworn on the same day, wherein she was averred that:a.The Affiant stated that she was aware that on 11th March 2025, the Honourable Court had issued an order that status quo be maintained of property TITLE NUMBER KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783. Attached and marked as “AK – 1” was a copy of the first Court order.b.On 25th March, 2025 the Honourable Court had issued an order further to a certificate of urgency in relation to a contempt application against the Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 2” was a copy of the second Court order.c.She was aware the Defendants had been served with a copy of the Court Order on 17th March, 2025 and she had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.d.On 24th July, 2025 the Honourable Court had issued an order further to a certificate of urgency in relation to a contempt application against the 6th and 7th Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 3” was a copy of the third Court order.e.She was aware the Defendants had been served with a copy of the Court Order through their Advocates and she had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.f.Instead of complying with the Orders, the Defendants had continued and escalated the violation of the status quo orders and applicable laws, and had built high walls of 8–20 feet on her property on two sides and directly on a boundary wall on or around September, 2025 after she had left Diani for Nairobi in August, 2025, in violation of the status quo orders of the Honourable Court.g.She became aware of these walls on 17th December, 2025 when she returned to Diani and was shocked and deeply distressed by the same, which left her in fear for the integrity of her property and destroyed her quiet enjoyment and possession of her property. Attached and marked as “AK – 4” were images of the walls constructed, which she sent to her Advocate.h.That (a) two of the walls were built on her property under her roof, and (b) one of the walls was an extension of the boundary wall above the lawful height limit of 8ft, without her knowledge and consent, in a way that damaged her property.i.On enquiry from staff she was informed that the walls had been built in September, 2025 and that the building was overseen by the 6th and 7th Respondents.j.She had reported the matter to Kwale Planning Department, NEMA and NCA.k.She had reported the matter to Diani Police Station with an OB and filed a statement, and to the best of her knowledge Diani Police Station DCI had again failed to act on the complaint, as they had failed to act on all previous complaints.l.On 12th February, 2026 she had received a communication from her neighbour, Dirk Erkhoff, in the neighbouring Title No. 998, with a letter he had been sent purporting to be from Utunzi Limited through Advocate George Kamau of MK Advocates, Diani, threatening him with legal proceedings if he continued to provide water to her. Attached and marked as “AK – 5” was the letter threatening the Applicants’ neighbour.m.Mr. Erkhoff was her only water source, as the house was located too far from the parking to allow a water truck to provide her with water, and no doubt the Defendants would obstruct a water truck as well. He had been supplying her with water since before she filed the suit and after the Respondents cut her private water supply to her house, which was not a common water supply. The Respondents had prevented her from digging a well and threatened people who supplied her with water.n.A site visit would allow the Honourable Justice to see how her water supply had been interfered with and obstructed, and the true actions and intentions of the Respondents, which were to deprive her of water entirely as a form of punishment and extortion.o.She humbly requested that the Honourable Justice undertake a site visit to attend the property to see the true nature, location and scale of the walls built on her property in defiance of the status quo order of the Honourable Court.p.She believed the site visit would provide the Honourable Court with information relevant to the application for contempt and restoration of even date and the suit, and delineate and bring to life the severity of the contempt and damage to her property by the Respondents, who acted without restraint even further to the status quo order. XV. The Notice of Motion application dated 11th February, 2026 (B) 34.The Application was brought under the provision Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law. 35.The Plaintiffs/Applicants sought the following orders:-a.Spent.b.The Respondents remove the walls built on and adjacent to the Applicant’s property and restore the property to its state prior to the filing of the suit as per the status quo order dated 11th March, 2025 at their cost.c.The restoration be undertaken in accordance with the directions of a qualified senior structural engineer agreed by the parties within seven (7) days or in absence of agreement appointed by the Court at the Respondents cost.d.In the event the Respondents fail to restore the property as directed herein within fourteen (14) days the Applicant may undertake the same at the costs of the Respondents.e.The 2nd, 6th and 7th Respondents jointly and equally pay an amount equivalent to the estimated cost of restoration of Kshs. 350,000/- into Court.f.The Respondents are restrained from interfering the Applicants property, possession and quiet enjoyment, entering, building on or adjacent to the Applicant’s property.g.The Respondents are restrained from interfering with the Applicant’s water supply from their neighbor Dirk Erkhoff or from any other source, including by threatening those providing water to the Applicant.h.Cost of this application be provided.i.Exemplary and punitive damages against the Respondents. 36.The application was premised on the grounds, facts, and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 20 Paragraphed annexed affidavit of ASHMINDER KAUR, the 2nd Plaintiff and an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, sworn on the same day, wherein she averred that:a.She was aware that on 11th March, 2025, the Honourable Court had issued an order that status quo be maintained of property TITLE NUMBER KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783. Attached and marked as “AK – 1” was a copy of the first Court order.b.On 25th March, 2025 the Honourable Court had issued an order further to a certificate of urgency in relation to a contempt application against the Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 2” was a copy of the second Court order.c.She was aware the Defendants had been served with a copy of the Court Order on 17th March, 2025 and she had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.d.On 24th July, 2025 the Honourable Court had issued an order further to a certificate of urgency in relation to a contempt application against the 6th and 7th Defendants. Attached and marked as “AK – 3” was a copy of the third Court order.e.She was aware the Defendants had been served with a copy of the Court Order through their Advocates and she had anticipated that the Orders would be complied with.f.Instead of complying with the Orders, the Defendants had continued and escalated the violation of the status quo orders and applicable laws, and had built high walls of 8–20 feet on her property on two sides and directly on a boundary wall. She was advised by her staff on enquiry that the walls were built on or around September, 2025 after she had left Diani for Nairobi in August, 2025, in violation of the status quo orders of the Honourable Court.g.She became aware of these walls on 17th December, 2025 when she returned to Diani and was shocked and deeply distressed by the same, which left her in fear for the integrity of her property and destroyed her quiet enjoyment and possession of her property. Attached and marked as “AK – 4” were images of the walls constructed, which she sent to her Advocate.h.That (a) two of the walls were built on her property under her roof, and (b) one of the walls was an extension of the boundary wall above the lawful height limit of 8ft, without her knowledge and consent, in a way that damaged her property.i.On enquiry from staff she was informed that the walls had been built in September 2025 and that the building was overseen by the 6th and 7th Respondents.j.She had reported the matter to Kwale Planning Department, NEMA and NCA.k.She had reported the matter to Diani Police Station with an OB and filed a statement, and to the best of her knowledge Diani Police Station DCI had again failed to act on the complaint, as they had failed to act on all previous complaints.l.On 12th February, 2026 she had received a communication from her neighbour, Dirk Erkhoff, in the neighbouring Title No. 998, with a letter he had been sent purporting to be from Utunzi Limited through Advocate George Kamau of MK Advocates, Diani, threatening him with legal proceedings if he continued to provide water to her. Attached and marked as “AK – 5” was the letter threatening the Applicants’ neighbour.m.Mr. Erkhoff was her only water source, as the house was located too far from the parking to allow a water truck to provide her with water, and no doubt the Respondents would obstruct a water truck as well. He had been supplying her with water since before she filed the suit and after the Respondents cut her private water supply to her house, which was not a common water supply. The Respondents had prevented her from digging a well and threatened people who supplied her with water.n.The intention of the Respondents was to deprive her of water entirely as a form of punishment and extortion, and to deprive her of rental income as her tenants required water. She had bookings on Airbnb for tenants between 17th – 22nd February 2026 and she would be deprived of this income, which would adversely affect her reputation, income and business.o.She was appalled and deeply aggrieved that the Orders of the Honourable Court were being continually and repeatedly ignored by the Respondents.p.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that the Respondents’ conduct continually and in an escalating brazen manner undermined the authority and dignity of the Honourable Court as they were personally aware of the orders of the Court and had neither sought to have the same appealed against and had instead continually escalated their defiance.q.She was advised by her Advocates on record, whose advice she verily believed to be true and correct, that it was in the interest of justice that the Defendants be cited for contempt for frustrating the orders of the Honourable Court, thus bringing the Court into disrepute, and to restore the status quo at the time the suit was filed as per the Orders of the Honourable Court dated 11th March, 2025.r.She swore the affidavit in support of her application for the interim orders sought pending the hearing and determination of the case, and sought urgent relief in the face of what was escalating and increasing irreparable harm and contempt by the Respondents. XVI. The Notice of Preliminary objection by the Defendants dated 14th May, 2025 37.The Defendants raised a Preliminary objection on a point of law on the grounds:a.That this suit is statute barred by virtue of Section 4(1)(a) of the Statute of Limitation Act. 38.The Defendants consequently sought for the striking out of the Application dated 18th February, 2025 together with the Plaint of even date. XVII. The Notice of Preliminary objection by the Plaintiffs dated 25th July, 2025 39.The Plaintiffs raised Preliminary objection and prayed to reply to the Grounds of Opposition of the Defendants and all supporting documents be struck out with costs and punitive costs on the grounds that:-a.The Verifying Affidavit and the Supporting Affidavit of the Respondents had been sworn by Elizabeth Sommes (“Sommes”) and were not proper in law, defective, and should have been struck out.b.The provision of Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act stated that particulars to be included in the jurat or attestation clause were as follows:“Every commissioner for oaths before whom any oath of affidavit is taken or made under this Act shall state truly in the jurat or attestation at what place and on what date the oath of affidavit is taken or made.”c.Elizabeth Sommes was a stranger to the suit, as the 2nd Defendant was named as Lisbeth Sommes and the director of the 1st Defendant was known as Lisbeth Sommes, as set out in the CR - 12 Form of Utunzi Limited.d.The Verifying Affidavit misled the Honourable Court as the deponent had been abroad and not in Kenya on the date it purported to have been sworn before a Commissioner of Oaths in Nairobi, Kenya.e.The Supporting Affidavit stated it was “SWORN at NAIROBI” on the “14th Day of May 2025” by the said Elizabeth Sommes, when it was understood the deponent had been abroad and not in Kenya.f.The signature of Elizabeth Sommes in the Verifying Affidavit and the Witness Statement dated 14th May, 2025 were identical and appeared to be copy‑pasted signatures superimposed on the documents and not original signatures.g.Sommes of the 1st and 2nd Defendants appeared in this suit and another suit filed before the Honourable Court using affidavits and witness statements under three different names. In ELCLC/EO63/2025, the name used was Genevieve Madeleine Lisbeth Sommes, who claimed to be the director of the 1st Defendant. That affidavit purported to have been sworn in Diani while commissioned in Nairobi, at a date it was understood Sommes had been abroad. The signature thereupon appeared to be a copy‑paste.h.The 1st and 2nd Defendants had used multiple (three) different names in two suit proceedings before the Honourable Court, and each suit had been commissioned in Nairobi, Kenya, on dates when it was understood the deponent had been abroad and not in Nairobi.i.The 1st and 2nd Defendants had prima facie committed the offence of perjury, as the deponent had not been present when the affidavit was commissioned.j.The provision of Section 11 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act provided that:“If any person knowingly and wilfully makes any statement which is false in a material particular in a statutory declaration he shall be guilty of an offence and liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine not exceeding two thousand shillings, or to both imprisonment and fine.” XVIII. Submissions 40.While all the parties were present in Court, directions were issued that the Notice of Motion Applications dated 18th February, 2025, 21st March, 2025, 19th May, 2025, 15th July, 2025, 12th September, 2025, 16th October, 2025 and 11th February, 2026 respectively filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants, the Notice of Preliminary objections dated 14th May, 2025 and 25th July, 2025 and the numerous responses to these applications be canvassed by way of written submissions. All parties duly complied with the Court’s directions. Pursuant thereto, a ruling date was reserved on notice. Eventually, it was delivered on 5th May, 2026 by the Court accordingly. A. The Written Submissions by the Plaintiffs in respect of Contempt of Orders dated 11th March, 2025, 21st March, 2025 and 24th July, 2025 41.The Plaintiffs through the Law firm of Messrs. KMA Advocates filed their written submissions dated 16th October, 2025. Mr. Kivuva Advocate submitted that the provision of Article 40 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of Kenya (CoK) protects the right of every person, either individually or in association with others to acquire and own property of any description and does not permit any person (a) to arbitrarily deprive a person of property of any description or of any interest in, or right over, any property of any description, or (b) to in any way restrict the enjoyment of any right. The provision of Article 43 of Constitution of Kenya establishes the right to clean and safe water in adequate quantities for all citizens 42.The Learned Counsel submitted that the provision of Article 48 of the Constitution of Kenya mandates that the State shall ensure access to justice for all persons. The Plaintiffs, having obtained injunctive and status quo orders on 11th March, 2025, 21st March, 2025 and 24th July, 2025, were entitled to the protection of their property rights and the quiet enjoyment of the suit property.The Learned Counsel further submitted that the provision of Section 5 of the Judicature Act grants this Honourable Court inherent power to enforce its orders and uphold the authority and dignity of the Court and the rule of law. The Law with regard to disobedience of an injunctive orders was found in Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. 43.The Plaintiffs relied on the orders dated 11th March, 2025, 21st March, 2025 and 24th July, 2025 (the Orders) and the four contempt applications and two further Replying Affidavits together with supporting evidence. The dispute concerned the violation of fundamental rights of the Plaintiffs, rights under the Sale Agreement, Lease and applicable laws and rights to justice and the rule of law in respect of the Orders of this Honourable Court. The Learned Counsel averred that on 11th March, 2025, the Plaintiffs obtained a clear and unambiguous status quo order against the Defendants. The purpose of this order was to prevent the Defendants from damaging the Plaintiffs’ properties, using force, and deliberately violating the property rights of the Plaintiffs in order to compel payment of service charges which were illegally demanded without due process (Order 1). The Order was served on the Defendants. 44.Almost immediately the Defendants breached the order by obstructing and assaulting the 2nd Plaintiff (the 1st Plaintiff being abroad), blocking the Defendants parking and fencing off sections of the common parking for the Defendants sole use and which resulted inn the Plaintiffs contempt application dated 21st March, 2025. On 21st March, 2025 this Court issued a further order stating that the facts of the breach of the order dated 11th March, 2025 had very serious consequences which may lead to one having their liberality curtailed and being committed to civil jail (Order 2). The order was served on the Defendants. 45.Almost immediately the Defendants violated the orders and undertook illegal construction work, building in violation of the provision of the Lease and interfering with the Plaintiffs property in particular the water supply and installation of an underground water pipes from the home of the 2nd Plaintiff which resulted in the Plaintiffs contempt application dated 15th July, 2025 accompanied by the 2nd Plaintiff’s supporting affidavit dated 22nd July, 2025 and annexures. 46.On 20th July, 2025, the Defendants filed a separate suit in the same matter before this Court in ELC E063 OF 2025 in order to circumvent the Orders and obtained an interlocutory injunction against the 2nd Plaintiff to prevent her being able to restore water and repair and maintain her water supply. On 24th July, 2025 the Court issued a further order stating that in order to preserve the suit property the orders of status quo to be maintained and the 6th and 7th Defendants/Respondents were ordered not to interfere with the Plaintiffs/ Applicants properties (Order 3). The order was served on the Defendants. 47.On 3rd September, 2025, the Plaintiff was informed by her security company that a guard employed by the 2nd Defendant and managed by the 6th and 7th Defendants on a day to day basis was caught hacking three sections out of the 2nd Plaintiffs water hose. The Defendants guard was arrested and jailed and the charge sheet was filed with the Plaintiffs contempt application dated 12th September, 2025. 48.The Learned Counsel asserted that the Plaintiffs were the owners of property in LR KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783 – the suit property and had property rights over the common area and are entitled to ownership of shares in the management company, the 1st Defendant and were deeply aggrieved by the violation of the orders by Defendants who continued in escalating non – compliance to deny them right to quiet enjoyment of their property and due process and all that relentless impunity and disregard for the rule of law which renders meaningless the Plaintiffs right under the orders. The 1st Defendant was the head lessor of the suit property and the management company and which had not been properly constituted. 49.The 2nd Defendant was the sole director of the 1st Defendant, a shareholder and owner of units in the suit property who acts in flagrant breach of the Orders and sets the tone for others to follow. The 2nd Defendant never resided permanently or solely in the suit property. The 3rd Defendant was a deceased director and owner units whose estate was claimed by the 4th and 5th Defendants. The 3rd Defendant collected service charge payments from the 2nd Plaintiff. The 4th and 5th Defendants was the step-daughter and step-son of the 3rd Defendant. The 4th and 5th Defendants never resided permanently or solely in the suit property. The 6th Defendants was an employee of the 2nd Defendant and is employed by the 8th Defendant and day-to-day manager in the suit premises.The 7th Defendant was an employee of the 4th and 5th Defendants and day-to-day manager in the suit premises. 50.The 8th Defendant was owned by the 2nd Defendant, employed the 6th Defendant and some staff in the suit property and collects service charge payments from some seven persons whose houses are located within and outside the suit property, including the 1st Plaintiff.The 1st Interested Party is the directorate of criminal investigations a statutory authority that is investigating the suit property in relation to land and economic fraud by the 1st - 5th Defendants.The 2nd interested Party was a county water authority that the Defendants repeatedly obstructed from installing private water meters in the Plaintiffs houses. The 3rd Interested Party is the Attorney General of Kenya. The 4th Interested Party is a human rights body which was an authority on the Constitutional rights cited herein. 51.The Learned Counsel opined that in the instant case, the Court was tasked with making a determination of whether the Defendants/Respondents willfully disobeyed the orders of the Court. The Learned Counsel relied on the case of “Shimmers Plaza Limited – Versus - National Bank of Kenya Limited CA No 33 of 2012”, the Court quoted Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States who once said:“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not as a favour. 52.The law in respect of disobedience of an injunctive order is found in Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and stated as follows:In case of disobedience or breach of any such terms, the court granting an injunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in prison for a term not exceeding six months unless in the meantime the court directs his release. 53.In the case of” “Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others – Versus - National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR” the Court stated:-40.It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to provei.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 orderUpon proof of these requirements the presence of willfulness 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. 54.The Court in the case of:- “Mwarika – Versus - Mlaji & 2 Others [2022] ELC 47” stated:-“Perhaps the most comprehensive of the elements of civil contempt was stated by the learned authors of the book "Contempt in Modern New Zealandare 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 Respondent/Defendant;(b)the Respondent/Defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order;(c)the Respondent/ Defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and(d)the Respondent/Defendant's conduct was deliberate. 55.The Court in the “Shimmers Plaza case (supra)” summarized the nature and purpose of contempt proceedings inter alia:“Contempt of court is not merely a mechanism for the enforcement of court orders. The jurisdiction of the superior courts to commit recalcitrant litigants for contempt of court when they fail or refuse to obey court orders has at its heart the very effectiveness and legitimacy of the judicial system. That, in turn, means that the court called upon to commit such a litigant for his or her contempt is not only dealing with the individual interest of the frustrated successful litigant but also, as importantly, acting as guardian of the public interest.” 56.The terms of “the Status Quo Order” of 11th March, 2025, Order of 21st March, 2025 and 24th July, 2025 were clear and unambiguous and binding on the Defendants/Respondents. The minor clerical error in respect of the date of the Certificate of Urgency and Notice of Motion in relation to the Order of 11th March, 2025 are subject to an application for rectification made by the Plaintiff's. Notwithstanding the aforementioned the minor clerical error did not negate the clear and unambiguous and binding terms of the order or their natural meaning and the Defendants/Respondents Replying Affidavit dated 16th June, 2025 stated that they were aware that of the error and of the actual date of the applications and were therefore not confused or prejudiced in any way.Despite having substantial opportunity to do so the Defendants/ Respondents not only failed to file an application in relation to the error in the Order of 11th March, 2025 but responded substantively in respect of the order in their replying affidavit dated 16th June, 2025.The Defendants/Respondents acknowledge they were served with the Orders and had knowledge of their terms 57.The Defendants/Respondents breaches of Orders had the effect of denying the Plaintiffs the benefit of those orders and repeatedly and consistently undermined the rule of law and emptied the Court's orders of all their authority and purpose. The Defendants/ Respondents breaches of the status quo order are set out in the four contempt applications before this Honourable Court together with extensive evidence of the harm done to the Plaintiffs rights by the continued damage to property, trespass, obstruction of access, interference with utilities and water supply, building of structures, building in violation of the Lease and NCA and NEMA stop orders, assault and harassment, blocking of parking, hacking of pipes, arrest of the Defendants staff for criminal damage, circumvention of the Orders by filing separate proceedings with contradictory and fraudulent evidence, which had continued unabated in absolute and escalating defiance of all that lawful authority vested in this Honourable Court. 58.At each and every stage the breaches by the Defendants/ Respondents were knowing, malicious, deliberate, calculated, coordinated and pre-planned and resulted in September 2025 in the arrest of their employee for yet another violent attack on the 2nd Defendants property. Despite being served with three Orders of this Honourable Court in which the consequences for contempt were set out with complete and absolute clarity the Defendants/ Respondents remained defiant and did not to comply with the Orders and to instead chose escalate and show defiance in complete and utter contempt, in order to pursue their personal vendetta against the Plaintiffs and show their anger at the 2nd Plaintiff for seeking to hold them to account. 59.For complete and absolute clarity and as set out in detail in the Further Replying Affidavit of the 2nd Plaintiff dated 16th October 2021, the Lease mandates arbitration in respect of a dispute over compensation and service charge. Where the amount was not disputed the Lease requires a court order be obtained in respect of any monies claimed by the 1st Defendants/ Respondents further to following due process.Therefore the Defendants/Respondents position that an arbitrary amount of service charge claimed unilaterally by them without any legal invoice, statements or audited accounts or any lawfully constituted management company justifies the heinous and extensive violations of the Orders on the basis that those violent, unlawful and illegal attacks on property rights and persons of the Plaintiffs were always the status quo is rejected as an absurd and wholly indefensible position. 60.The Defendants/Respondents have not responded to the second and fourth contempt applications. The Defendants/Respondents position in relation to the 3rd contempt application is to fabricate evidence to try to justify their breach and this is addressed in detail in the first Further Replying Affidavit of the 2nd Plaintiff in respect of second replying affidavit of the Defendant/Respondents. That the Court should have regard to the fact that the 2nd, 6th and 7th Defendants did not just violate the Orders of this Honourable Court but also violated the stop orders or the National Construction Authority (NCA) and NEMA. That NCA filed an OB in relation to the same at Diani Police Station against the 2nd Defendant/ Respondent's illegal construction following the status quo order however, for extraordinary reasons ODPP Kwale once again declined to file charges. 61.The Learned Counsel averred that the Defendants/Respondents appear to repeatedly escape any accountability for their criminal actions due to the failure of Kwale ODPP to charge them in multiple instances and therefore the enforcement of contempt orders against the Defendants/Respondents was mandatory and not optional if they to be restrained and held in contempt. In accordance with the test set out in Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others proof has been presented by the Plaintiffs in respect of (i) the terms of the orders, (ii) that the Defendants/ Respondents had knowledge and were aware of the terms of the Orders and (iii) that the Defendants/Respondents failed to comply with the terms of the Orders not simply on one occasion but repeatedly in an escalating manner, willfully and knowingly did not to comply, and have not been restrained or compliant in the seven (7) month period since the Order dated 11th March, 2025. 62.Upon proof of the above requirements the presence of willfulness and bad faith on the part of the Defendants/Respondent would normally be inferred, but the Respondent could rebut this inference by contrary proof on a balance of probabilities. However each submission of the Defendants / Respondents only lends further weight to the position that they have no defence or rebuttal for their actions, save ones that are not based in law or fact.The provision of Order 40 Rule 3 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and state that in cases of disobedience or breach of any such terms, the court granting an injunction may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in prison for a term not exceeding six months unless in the meantime the court directs his release. 63.It was submitted that the breaches by the Defendants/ Respondents are multiple and relate to three Orders and that each disobedience and breach by the Defendants/Respondents should be treated individually, non-concurrently and consecutively with the Defendants/ Respondents being attached and also detained in respect of each breach as the Court sees fit. 64.According to the Learned Counsel the reliefs sought from the Honourable Court were as follows: -a.Orders for contempt against the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants / Respondents together with the appropriate financial and penal consequences that the Court sees fit.b.Orders restraining the 6th and 7th Defendants / Respondents from access to the suit property or in the alternative attaching the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants / Respondents properties.c.Orders compensating the 2nd Plaintiff / Applicants for damage, loss and security costs incurred due to the breaches of the Orders by the Defendants/ Respondents.d.Damages and punitive damages that the Court deems appropriate.e.Costs of the applications. B. The Written Submissions by the Defendants/ Respondents in response to all the Applicants’ applications dated 18th February, 2025, 20th March, 2025, 19th May, 2025 and 15th July, 2025 65.The Defendants/ Respondents through the Law firm of Messrs. Shapley Barret & Co. Advocates filed their written submissions dated 25th November, 2025. Mr. Owino Advocate commenced the submissions stating that the Applicants sought a wide range of orders, including temporary injunctions, access to common areas, restraining orders and contempt citations. The Respondents oppose all the said applications by filing the Replying Affidavits sworn on the 14th May, 2025, 16th June, 2025, 16th June, 2025, 20th August, 2025 and the one sworn on the 28th October, 2028, on the basis that they are founded on falsehoods, supported by inadmissible or insufficient evidence and an abuse of the Court process by a litigant in persistent breach of her own obligations. 66.The dispute originates from the lease dated 15th November, 2016, which governs relations between the parties. The 2nd Applicant had been in material breach of this lease by failing to pay service charge and utilities, now accumulated to over a sum of Kenya Shillings Five Fifty Three Thousand Six Twenty One Hundred (Kshs. 553,621.00/=) as pleaded in the Counter - Claim. 67.The Learned Counsel relied on the following four (4) issues for determination by the Honourable Court: -i.Whether the Applicants have established a prima facie case warranting injunctive relief.ii.Whether the Applicants will suffer irreparable harm.iii.Where the balance of convenience lies.iv.Whether the Respondents are guilty of contempt of court.v.Whether the assault allegations and documentary evidence relied upon meet the threshold of admissibility.vi.Whether the applications constitute an abuse of the Court process.vii.Whether the Applicants have established a prima facie case 68.According to the Learned Counsel, a prima facie case requires credible evidence of a right that has been infringed. The Applicants had produced no such evidence. Clause 2(d) of the lease obligated lessees to pay service charge and utility bills.The 2nd Applicant had gone nearly three years without paying these sums. She had produced no receipts or any other evidence of payment. The 1st Applicant’s receipts could not cure the 2nd Applicant’s default, nor could they create rights for a party who had failed to fulfil her own obligations. Access to common areas was not absolute, it is contingent upon payment of service charge. One could not decline to contribute financially yet demand uninterrupted enjoyment of services that orders were paying for. 69.On whether irreparable harm had been demonstrated. The Learned Counsel submitted that under the case of:- “Giella – Versus - Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd (1973) EA 358”, irreparable harm must be real, tangible, and incapable of monetary compensation. Although the Applications were filed under a certificate of urgency, the Applicants deliberately failed to comply with the Court's timelines for their prosecution. Some of the Applications have remained dormant for over six months. If any irreparable harm truly existed, a diligent litigant would have prosecuted the Applications with speed.Their prolonged inaction demonstrates that no such harm exists.In fact, the alleged harm has never materialized in the many months since the filing of the Applications.The circumstances complained of had been overtaken by events, and the Applicants continue to reside on the property without any ongoing prejudice. 70.It was therefore impossible for the Applicants to satisfy the Court that the harm was imminent or irreparable. In the alternative and without prejudice to the foregoing, any inconvenience claimed by the 2nd Applicant was the foreseeable and self-inflicted consequence of her persistent refusal to pay service charge and utility bills.Services could be restored immediately upon settlement of the arrears. The 2nd Applicant could not manufacture urgency through non-payment and then rely on it to claim. irreparable harm. 71.On the balance of convenience. The Learned Counsel averred that the balance of convenience favors the Respondents. It could not favor a party who had refused to pay service charge but sought to enjoy the services paid for by others. Granting the orders sought would compel the Respondents to subsidize the 2nd Applicant indefinitely. 72.Mwita J in the case of “Tiffany Wang’eri Njuguna – Versus - Wilson Gikonyo Petition 5 of 2019 (eKLR)”, held:-“The Petitioner resides in a gated community. According to the Respondent, and this has not been denied by the Petitioner, residents in that community have obligations and requirements that they have to meet and abide by in order to get certain communal services. One of the requirements is payment of service charge which enables residents get common services including treated water from the borehole which is supplied to those residents who have met their obligations. In my considered view, the answer must be in the negative. The Petitioner lives in a community with rules and regulations. All other members oblige and meet their obligations. The Petitioner having opted not to follow the regulations, she must have driven herself out of the right to get common services including water from the common source. Her right to water from the common source was founded on her meeting the contractual obligations to pay service charge. Payment of service charge would put her in a position to demand common services from the Respondent, including the right to get water from the common borehole otherwise she may not rightfully demand and consume water she does not pay for given that there is much more the service charge does for the benefit of the community than just water.” 73.On the contempt of Court. The Learned Counsel argued that the Order dated 11th March, 2025 referenced a non-existent application. An order based on a non-existent Application was incapable of enforcement in law. The Respondents brought this defect to the Applicants' attention as early as May, 2025. Despite this, the Applicants took no steps whatsoever to rectify the error, and instead continued relying on an invalid order for several months. It was not until 12th September, 2025 that the Applicants belatedly filed an application seeking to amend the defective order. The very act of filing the 12th September, 2025 application amounts to an unequivocal admission by the Applicants that the impugned order was defective and unenforceable. Consequently, the order only became operational after its correction by the Court. 74.As matters stood, there was no subsisting application by the Respondents upon which the corrected order can operate as the same could not operate retrospectively. Without prejudice to the foregoing, and in the alternative, the Applicants themselves correctly set out the law on civil contempt at Paragraph 31 of their written submissions. The Learned Counsel relied on the decision in the case of:- “Mwarika – Versus - Mlaji & 2 Others (2022) ELC 47”, which outlines the essential elements of civil contempt as follows:a.The terms of the order must be clear and unambiguous;b.The Respondent must have had knowledge of the terms of the order; andc.The Respondent acted in breach of the said order. 75.The said order relied upon by the 2nd Applicant directed the parties to maintain ‘status quo’. ‘Status quo’ simply means the existing state of affairs. At the material time, the existing state of affairs was that the 2nd Applicant's access to amenities had been lawfully disconnected due to her continued failure to pay service charge and utility bills. The Respondents therefore understood the order to require preservation of that state of affairs, which meant maintaining the disconnection until arrears were settled. Consequently, not only was the order ambiguous, but the Respondents did not breach it. The Respondents acted consistently with what the order required, preserving the existing situation as it stood.Further, the 2nd Applicant proceeded to construct an underground water tank within her garden without the Lessor's consent, in express violation of the Lease and in breach of the very status quo the 2nd Applicant invokes. 76.The 2nd Applicant's conduct renders her, not the Respondents, the contemnor, and disentitles her to any equitable relief. 77.On the admissibility of assault allegations. The Learned Counsel contended that the 2nd Applicant’s motives behind the allegations of assault had been dealt with in detail in the Respondents' Replying Affidavit dated 16th June, 2025. In addition, assault was a grave allegation to level against anyone let alone without credible evidence.No P3 form has been produced. The medical ‘note’ is unauthenticated and inadmissible. The alleged video evidence has not been disclosed or made available to the Respondents. This failure denied the Respondents a fair opportunity to respond, and therefore infringes their right to a fair hearing. 78.The only remaining evidence relied upon to support the allegations of assault consists of hearsay statements. This issue was already addressed in detail in the Replying Affidavit dated 16th June, 2025. With respect to the 6th and 7th Respondents, the Applicants had not identified any specific act or omission attributable to either of them that would justify the grant of a restraining order. It was trite law that a restraining order is an equitable remedy, and a party seeking such relief must demonstrate that they had approached the Court with clean hands.The 2nd Applicant has not done so. In her various applications, the 2nd Applicant failed to disclose her own conduct, including the acts of assault set out at paragraphs 11 to 19 of the Replying Affidavit sworn on 16th June, 2025. 79.Accordingly, not only had the 2nd Applicant failed to provide any evidence capable of proving the alleged assault, but her lack of honesty and failure to approach the Court with clean hands disentitles her from obtaining the equitable relief of a restraining order. 80.On the abuse of process. The Learned Counsel averred that after having filed numerous applications and the court having given timelines on prosecution of the same, the Applicants deliberately failed to comply with the said directions. Instead, and without offering any explanation, the Applicants filed a Further Affidavit and submissions dated 16th October, 2025, seven (7) months after filing their application and six (6) months after the Respondents had filed their response, which were only served on 28th October, 2025. In an attempt to justify this non-compliance, the 2nd Applicant resorted to perjury and/or falsehoods before this Honorable Court, as detailed in the Replying Affidavit dated 28th October, 2025. In light of the 2nd Applicant’s perjury and blatant violation of Court directions, the pleadings filed out of time are incurably defective and should be struck out. 81.The Learned Counsel submitted that the Plaintiffs/ Applicants could not seek relief not pleaded in their applications because pleadings define the scope of a lawsuit. Courts were bound by the issues raised in the pleadings, and awarding relief outside of what was specifically requested would be a breach of this fundamental rule. This ensured the Defendants/Respondents had an opportunity to respond to the claims and evidence presented. This was held in the case of”- “Antony Francis Wareham t/a AF Wareham 2 others – Versus - Kenya Post Office Savings Bank Civil Appeals Numbers 5 and 48 of 2002 (Consolidated)”. 82.In conclusion, the Learned Counsel submitted that the Respondents therefore prayed that:-a.All the Applicants’ applications dated 18th February, 2025, 20th March, 2025, 19th May, 2025 and 15th July, 2025 be dismissed in their entirety.b.Costs of all the applications be awarded to the Respondents. XIX. Analysis and Determination 83.I have considered the numerous Notice of Motion applications filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants, the Notices of Preliminary Objections, the Replying Affidavits sworn by the Defendants/Respondents, the Grounds of Opposition, the Further Affidavits sworn by the Plaintiffs, and the written submissions and the plethora of authorities filed by both parties. 84.From the pleadings, affidavits, and arguments placed before this Honourable Court, the following (11) issues fall for determination in relation to the instant applications:-a.Whether the Notice of Preliminary objection dated 14th May, 2025 is merited;b.Whether the Notice of Preliminary objection dated 25th July, 2025 is merited;c.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025 is merited;d.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 21st March, 2025 is merited;e.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025 is merited;f.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 15th July, 2025 is merited;g.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025 is merited;h.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025 is merited;i.Whether the Notices of Motion applications dated 11th February, 2026 is merited.j.What remedies and reliefs are appropriate in the circumstances.k.Who shall bear the costs of the Notices of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May, 2025 and Notices of Preliminary Objection dated 25th July, 2025, the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 21st, March, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025, the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025 and Notices of Motion applications dated 11th February, 2026. ISSUE No. a). Whether the Notice of Preliminary objection dated 14th May, 2025 was merit. 85.Under this sub‑heading, the Honourable Court shall decipher whether the objection raised by the Defendants qualifies as a pure point of law. Having considered the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May 2025, the pleadings, and the submissions of both parties, three issues arise for determination:a.Whether the objection raises pure points of law.b.Whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection is merited.c.Who bears the costs of the objection 86.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May 2025 is premised on the ground that the suit is statute‑barred under the provision of Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 and consequently seeks the striking out of the Plaint and Application dated 18th February, 2025. The jurisprudence on preliminary objections is settled. In “Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd – Versus - West End Distributors Limited [1969] EA 696”, the Court held that a preliminary objection is in the nature of a demurrer, raising a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct. It cannot be raised if facts must be ascertained or if judicial discretion is required. This principle was echoed in “Oraro – Versus - Mbaja [2005] KLR 141” and “Nitin Properties Limited – Versus - Jagjit Singh Kalsi & Another [1995-1998] 2 EA 257”. 87.Similarly, in the case of:- “United Insurance Co. Limited – Versus - Scholastica A. Odera (2005) LLR 7396”, the Court emphasized that a preliminary objection must be based on a clear point of law, not disputed facts. The Court of Appeal in “Attorney General & Another – Versus - Andrew Mwaura Githinji & Another [2016] eKLR” restated that improper raising of points by way of preliminary objection only increases costs and confuses issues. 88.In the present case, the objection challenges the competence of the suit on the basis of limitation of actions — a jurisdictional question that can dispose of the matter without delving into factual controversies. The Court therefore finds that the objection raises a pure point of law. 89.On whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection is merited, the Honourable Court wishes to rely on the provision of Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 Laws of Kenya provides that actions founded on contract may not be brought after the end of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs’ claim, being based on property rights and contractual obligations under the Lease and Sale Agreement, is time‑barred. 90.However, the Plaintiffs’ pleadings and supporting affidavits demonstrate that the cause of action arose from continuing violations of property rights and contempt of court orders issued in 2025. The alleged breaches are ongoing and not confined to a single historical event. The doctrine of continuing injury applies, as recognized in the case of:- “Gathoni – Versus - Kenya Co‑operative Creameries Ltd [1982] KLR 104”, where the Court held that limitation does not apply to continuous wrongs until the wrongful act ceases. 91.Further, the provision of Article 40 and 48 of the Constitution of Kenya guarantee the right to property and access to justice. Courts have consistently held that constitutional violations cannot be defeated by technical limitation periods. In the case of:- “Meixner & Another – Versus - Attorney General [2005] 2 KLR 189”, the Court observed that constitutional claims are sui generis and not subject to ordinary limitation provisions. 92.Moreover, the Plaintiffs’ suit includes prayers for enforcement of court orders and contempt proceedings. Such proceedings are not governed by Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 but by the Judicature Act, Section 5, and Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which empower the Court to enforce its orders and punish disobedience. 93.The Court is also guided by the provision of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, which directs that justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. In the case of:- “Philip Chemwolo & Another – Versus - Augustine Kubende (1982‑88) KAR 103”, the Court of Appeal held that mistakes should not automatically lead to dismissal of suits. Similarly, in the case of:- “D.T. Dobie & Co. (Kenya) Ltd – Versus - Muchina [1982] KLR 1”, the Court held that no suit should be summarily dismissed unless it is hopeless and beyond redemption. 94.Applying these principles to the instant case, the Honourable Court finds that the objection, though raising a point of law, lacks merit. The Plaintiffs’ cause of action is based on continuing violations and enforcement of court orders, which are not barred by limitation. 95.Under the provision of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 costs ordinarily follow the event. Since the objection is devoid of merit, the Defendants shall bear the costs of the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May, 2025. 96.In the final analysis, the Honourable Court finds that while the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May, 2025 raises a pure point of law, it is not merited. The objection premised on the provision of Section 4(1)(a) of the Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 fails to appreciate the continuing nature of the Plaintiffs’ grievances and the constitutional protection of property rights. Accordingly, the objection is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs. ISSUE No. b). Whether the Notice of Preliminary objection dated 25th July, 2025 was merited. 97.Under this sub‑heading, the Honourable Court shall decipher whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th July 2025 raises a pure point of law. The objection challenges the propriety of affidavits sworn by one Elizabeth Sommes, alleging defects under the provision of Sections 5 and 11 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 15 and further alleging perjury and irregular commissioning. 98.As already indicated, the jurisprudence on preliminary objections is settled. In the “Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Limited (Supra)”, the Court held that a preliminary objection is in the nature of a demurrer, raising a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded are correct. It cannot be raised if facts must be ascertained or if judicial discretion is required. This principle was echoed in “Oraro – Versus – Mbaja (Supra)” and “Nitin Properties Limited (Supra)”. 99.The objection herein touches on compliance with statutory provisions governing affidavits and the identity of the deponent. These are legal questions, but they are intertwined with factual disputes. For example, whether the deponent was abroad at the time of commissioning, whether signatures were genuine, and whether multiple names were used. Such matters require evidence and cannot be determined purely on points of law. Accordingly, while the objection purports to raise legal issues, it is not strictly a pure point of law. 100.The provision of Section 5 of the Oaths and Statutory Declarations Act, Cap. 15 requires that the jurat or attestation clause state the place and date where the oath was taken. The provision of Section 11 criminalizes knowingly making false statements in a statutory declaration. The Defendants argue that the affidavits sworn by Elizabeth Sommes are defective and amount to perjury. 101.However, courts have consistently held that defects in affidavits are curable. In the case of:- “Microsoft Corporation – Versus - Mitsumi Computer Garage Limited [2001] eKLR”, the Court held that procedural defects in affidavits should not defeat substantive justice. Similarly, the provision of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution directs courts to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities. 102.In as much as the allegations of perjury and falsified signatures are serious, they require proof through evidence. Clearly, these can not be determination at the preliminary stage. In the case of:- “D.T. Dobie & Co. (Kenya) Limited – Versus - Muchina [1982] KLR 1”, the Court held that no suit should be summarily dismissed unless it is hopeless and beyond redemption. Here, the Plaintiffs’ case raises substantive issues of property rights and contempt of court orders. Striking it out on affidavit defects would be draconian and contrary to the principle of substantive justice. 103.Ordinarily, in accordance with the provision of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 the issue of costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs follow the event. However, in this case, the Honourable Court shall use its discretion and not award any costs. 104.In the final analysis, the Honourable Court finds that the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th July, 2025 does not raise a pure point of law and is devoid of merit. The alleged defects in affidavits and questions of identity are factual matters requiring evidence and cannot be disposed of summarily. Accordingly, the objection is dismissed with no orders as to the costs. ISSUE No. c). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025 was merited. 105.Under this sub‑heading, the Honourable Court shall decipher whether the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025 is merited. The application sought interim reliefs to preserve the suit property and restrain the Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of their property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit. 106.The Court is guided by the principles in the case of:- “Giella – Versus - Cassman Brown & Co. Limited [1973] EA 358”, which set out the test for granting interlocutory injunctions:a.The applicant must establish a prima facie case with a probability of success.b.The applicant must demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.c.If the Court is in doubt, it will decide the application on a balance of convenience. 107.The Plaintiffs relied on status quo orders issued on 11th March, 2025, 21st March, 2025 and 24th July, 2025, which restrained the Defendants from damaging property, obstructing access, and interfering with utilities. Evidence was adduced of breaches including obstruction, assault, hacking of water pipes, and illegal construction. In the case of:- “Mrao Ltd – Versus - First American Bank of Kenya Ltd [2003] KLR 125”, the Court defined a prima facie case as one which discloses arguable rights that merit judicial protection. On the material placed before the Court, the Plaintiffs demonstrated a prima facie case. 108.The Plaintiffs showed that interference with water supply, destruction of property, and obstruction of access caused continuing harm not compensable by damages alone. Article 40 of the Constitution protects the right to property, while Article 43 guarantees the right to clean and safe water. The violations alleged go beyond monetary loss and touch on fundamental rights. In the case of:- “Nguruman Limited – Versus - Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others [2014] eKLR”, the Court held that irreparable harm is injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. The Plaintiffs satisfied this limb. 109.Where doubt exists, the Court must weigh the balance of convenience. The Plaintiffs are in possession and seek preservation of the property. The Defendants, on the other hand, have been accused of escalating violations. In the case of:- “Pius Kipchirchir Kogo – Versus - Frank Kimeli Tenai [2018] eKLR”, the Court held that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining the status quo. Here, the balance of convenience favours the Plaintiffs. 110.In the final analysis, the Honourable Court finds that the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025 is merited. The Plaintiffs established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favours preservation of the suit property. Issue No. d). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 21st March, 2025 is merited. 111.Under this sub‑heading, the Honourable Court shall decipher whether the Notice of Motion application dated 21st March, 2025 is merited. The application sought urgent orders citing the Defendants for contempt of the Court’s order of 11th March, 2025, restoration of access to common areas and amenities, restraining orders against specific Defendants and their agents, and supervision of compliance by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. 112.The Court is guided by the principles in “Giella – Versus - Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [Supra]” and “Nguruman Limited [Supra]”, which require the Applicant to establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable harm, and show that the balance of convenience favours the grant of injunctive relief. 113.The Plaintiffs adduced evidence that despite service of the order of 11th March, 2025, the Defendants obstructed access, blocked parking, and engaged in acts of intimidation and assault. The Supporting Affidavit of the 2nd Plaintiff detailed incidents on 16th –18th March, 2025, including physical assault, obstruction of entry, and malicious damage. Police OB entries and medical reports were annexed. 114.In the case of- “Mrao Limited (Supra)”, a prima facie case was defined as one which discloses arguable rights meriting judicial protection. The Plaintiffs demonstrated violation of property rights under the provision of Article 40 of the Constitution and contempt of clear court orders. This satisfies the requirement of a prima facie case. 115.The Plaintiffs showed that denial of access, physical assault, and obstruction of amenities caused harm beyond monetary compensation. The provision Article 43 of the Constitution guarantees the right to clean and safe water, while the provision of Article 48 guarantees access to justice. The violations alleged touch on fundamental rights and personal safety. In the case of:- “Nguruman Limited (Supra)”, the Court emphasized that irreparable harm is injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. The Plaintiffs satisfied this limb. 116.Where doubt exists, the Court must weigh the balance of convenience. The Plaintiffs are in possession and seek preservation of the property and their safety. The Defendants, on the other hand, have been accused of escalating violations and contempt. In the case of”- “Pius Kipchirchir Kogo – Versus - Frank Kimeli Tenai [Supra]”, the Court held that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of maintaining the status quo. Here, the balance of convenience favours the Plaintiffs. 117.I have considered the Affidavits on record, the annexures, the submissions of counsel and authorities relied on. The Black’s Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition) defines contempt of court as:-“Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court. Because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice, it is punishable usually by fine or imprisonment.” 118.In the case of:- “Johnson – Versus - Grant (1923) SC 789 at 790” Clyde L J noted:-“The phrase ‘contempt of court’ does not in the least describe the true nature of the class of offence with which we are here concerned.... The offence consists in interfering with the administration of the law; in impending and perverting the course of justice...... it is not the dignity of court which is offended – a petty and misleading view of the issues involved, it is the fundamental supremacy of the law which is challenged.” 119.In the case of “Woburn Estate Limited – Versus - Margaret Bashforth [2016] eKLR” the court of Appeal held as follows: -“For many years in the history of the Judiciary of Kenya the courts have, pursuant to section 5 (1) of the Judicature Act, resorted to the prevailing law of England in the exercise of the power to punish for contempt of court…….Today that position has drastically changed, starting with the establishment of the Supreme Court which was not envisaged when Section 5 of the Judicature Act was enacted. By Act No.7 of 2011, Article 163 (9) of the Constitution was operationalized by the enactment of the Supreme Court Act, Cap 9A, which among other things, makes express provision for the power of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt.Under Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, it is an offence punishable, upon conviction to a fine of not exceeding Kshs.20,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to both, if any person refuses, fails or neglects to obey an order or direction of the court given under the Act.....We have gone to this great length to demonstrate how, before the passage of these legislations the powers of the High Court and this Court to punish for contempt of court were dynamic and kept shifting depending on the prevailing laws in England. Today each level of court has been expressly clothed with jurisdiction to punish for contempt of court. The only missing link is the absence of the rules to be followed in commencing and prosecuting contempt of court applications 120.The order issued by this Court on 11th March, 2025 directed that the status quo be maintained. The evidence before the Court demonstrates deliberate disobedience of that order. This Court has stated the umpteenth times that court orders are not granted in vain. They are not cosmetic, a formality nor a suggestion. They are to be obeyed at all costs. Should anyone feel aggrieved by the said order, the only option is to approach the said court to have it set aside, varied or reviewed. Better still they can be appealed against. In case of:- “Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others – Versus - National Land Commission & 2 Others [2020] eKLR”, the Court held that once the terms of the order, knowledge, and breach are proved, willfulness and bad faith are inferred. The Defendants’ conduct meets this threshold. I am therefore obliged to revert to the provisions of the law that operated before the enactment of the Contempt of Court of Act (now repealed), to avoid a lacuna in the enforcement of Court’s orders. 121.It was in this respect as observed in the case of “Republic – Versus - Returning Officer of Kamkunji Constituency & The Electoral Commission of Kenya HCMCA No. 13 of 2008”, that the High Court (read Environment and Land court) has the responsibility for the maintenance of the rule of law, hence there cannot be a gap in the application of the rule of law. 122.In addition, in the case of “Republic – Versus - Principal Secretary, Ministry of Defence Ex parte George Kariuki Waithaka [2019] eKLR”, it was held that where there is a lacuna with respect to enforcement of remedies provided under the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, or if, through the procedure provided under an Act of Parliament, an aggrieved party is left with no alternative but to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court is perfectly within its rights to adopt such a procedure as would effectually give meaningful relief to the party aggrieved, in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction granted to the Court by the provision of Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 to grant such orders that meet the ends of justice and avoid abuse of the process of Court. 123.The provision of Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 is clear to the effect that;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. 124.In the final analysis, the Honourable Court finds that the Notice of Motion application dated 21st March 2025 is merited. The Plaintiffs established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favours preservation of the suit property and enforcement of court orders. ISSUE No. e). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025 is merited. 125.Under this sub‑heading, the Honourable Court shall decipher whether the Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025 is merited. The application sought urgent restraining orders against the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants and their agents, demolition of illegal works, contempt citations for disobedience of the Court’s orders of 11th March, 2025 and 24th March, 2025, and compensation for damage and distress. 126.The Court is guided by the principles in “Giella – Versus - Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [Supra]” and “Nguruman Limited [Supra]”, which require the Applicant to establish a prima facie case, demonstrate irreparable harm, and show that the balance of convenience favours the grant of injunctive relief. 127.The Plaintiffs adduced evidence of repeated contempt and violations of the Court’s orders, including illegal construction in defiance of NEMA and NCA stop orders, trespass onto the Plaintiff’s property, malicious damage to her house and vehicle, harassment, intimidation, and slashing of car tires. OB reports, medical records, and electronic video evidence were annexed. 128.In the “Mrao Ltd [Supra]”, a prima facie case was defined as one which discloses arguable rights meriting judicial protection. The Plaintiffs demonstrated violation of property rights under the provision of Article 40 of the Constitution, contempt of clear court orders, and threats to personal safety. This satisfies the requirement of a prima facie case. 129.The Plaintiffs showed that denial of access, physical assault, malicious damage, and intimidation caused harm beyond monetary compensation. The provision of Article 43 of the Constitution guarantees the right to clean and safe water, while Article 48 guarantees access to justice. The violations alleged touch on fundamental rights and personal safety, including trauma to a minor child. In the case of:- “Nguruman Limited (Supra)”, the Court emphasized that irreparable harm is injury that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. The Plaintiffs satisfied this limb by demonstrating that the harm suffered was not merely financial but involved physical injury, psychological trauma, and violation of constitutional rights. The slashing of vehicle tires, trespass into the Plaintiff’s home, and harassment of her child are acts that cannot be remedied by monetary compensation alone. 130.The order of 11th March, 2025 directed that the status quo be maintained. The evidence before the Court demonstrates deliberate and repeated disobedience of that order and subsequent orders. In the case of:- “Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others – Versus - National Land Commission & 2 Others [2020] eKLR”, the Court held that once the terms of the order, knowledge, and breach are proved, willfulness and bad faith are inferred. The Defendants’ conduct meets this threshold. Their actions were not inadvertent but calculated, coordinated, and persistent, amounting to contempt of court and undermining the rule of law. 131.In the final analysis, the Honourable Court finds that the Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025 is merited. The Plaintiffs established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favours preservation of the suit property and enforcement of court orders. The Defendants’ conduct constitutes contempt of court and warrants punitive measures.ISSUE No. f). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 15th July, 2025 is merited. 132.Under this sub – title, I have considered the Notice of Motion application dated 15th July, 2025, the supporting affidavit sworn by the 2nd Plaintiff, the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 2nd Defendant, and the submissions filed by both parties. The application seeks urgent restraining orders against the 6th and 7th Defendants, contempt citations for disobedience of the Court’s orders of 11th March, 2025 and 24th March, 2025, restoration of water supply, enforcement by the OCS Diani, and damages. 133.From the pleadings and arguments, the following issues fall for determination:a.Whether the Defendants are in contempt of the Court’s orders.b.Whether the Plaintiffs have established a prima facie case warranting injunctive relief.c.Whether irreparable harm has been demonstrated.d.Whether the balance of convenience favours the Plaintiffs.e.What reliefs are appropriate in the circumstances. 134.The 2nd Plaintiff swore a 29‑paragraph affidavit in support of the 15th July, 2025 application. She averred that she was aware that on 11th March, 2025 the Honourable Court had issued an order that status quo be maintained of property TITLE NUMBER KWALE/DIANI BEACH/783. She further deponed that the Defendants had cut her water pipes, prevented installation of a private meter and underground pipe, and that on 15th July, 2025 an EIA consultant, Fred Omondi, had impersonated a NEMA official at her gate. She averred that she was deeply distressed and alarmed that the 2nd and 7th Defendants’ EIA Consultant appeared instructed by the 2nd and 7th Defendants to impersonate a NEMA official in order to gain information and access to her home and to deceive and intimidate her staff and herself. 135.The Plaintiffs also relied on contemporaneous OBs, electronic video evidence, NEMA and NCA stop/suspension marks and orders, police reports of damage and assault, and photographic exhibits annexed to the supporting affidavit. The Defendants’ replying affidavit denied specific attribution of acts to the 6th and 7th Defendants, challenged the validity/competence of the status‑quo order, and alleged that the 2nd Plaintiff herself had undertaken works (an underground tank) in breach of the lease and the order. 136.The affidavit material, OBs, NEMA/NCA marks and the certificate of electronic evidence together disclose arguable rights: the Plaintiffs asserted ownership/possession rights, reliance on the Court’s status‑quo orders, and repeated acts by the Defendants that interfered with possession, utilities and safety. On the material before the Court the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case that merited interlocutory protection. 137.The 2nd Plaintiff alleged continuing interference with water supply, impersonation of state officials at her gate, trespass and physical intimidation of herself and her child, and malicious damage to property and vehicle. These are harms to personal safety, family life and essential utilities that cannot be adequately remedied by damages alone. The evidence of repeated OBs, video material and state agency stop orders supports a finding of irreparable harm. 138.The status quo orders were intended to preserve possession and prevent escalation. The Plaintiffs were in occupation and sought to preserve safety and utilities; the Defendants’ conduct, as alleged, risked further irreversible damage and danger to a minor. Even if the Defendants raised arguable defences (for example, that some works were on private plots or that the Applicant had engaged in minor works), those defences go to the merits and are not ordinarily decisive at the interlocutory stage. The balance of convenience therefore favoured interim protection for the Plaintiffs. 139.The Defendants argued the status‑quo order was defective and that the Applicant had herself undertaken works in breach of the lease. A challenge to the validity of the order or allegations of the Applicant’s own breach are matters of substance requiring fuller evidence and, where necessary, correction of the order or cross‑application. At interlocutory stage such contentions do not automatically defeat urgent protective relief where the applicant has shown a real risk of ongoing harm and credible evidence of non‑compliance by respondents. The Court must, however, tailor relief to avoid prejudice pending final determination. 140.On the material placed before the Court the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable harm, and showed that the balance of convenience favoured interim protective measures. The affidavit evidence, OBs, electronic evidence and state agency marks together raised a credible case of continuing breaches of the Court’s orders and unlawful interference with the 2nd Plaintiff’s water supply and safety. The Defendants’ denials and allegations of the Applicant’s own breach were not sufficient at this interlocutory stage to defeat the application. Those matters are triable and require fuller evidence; they do not negate the urgent need to protect life, safety and essential services while the substantive dispute proceeds. 141.In view of the foregoing, I hold that the Notice of Motion application dated 15th July 2025 is merited. The Plaintiffs has established the necessary interlocutory thresholds and the Court was justified in granting urgent protective relief to prevent further irreparable harm and to preserve the authority of its earlier orders. The Defendants remain entitled to raise and prove their defences at the substantive hearing; the interim relief is protective and without prejudice to those rights. ISSUE No. g). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025 is merited. 142.Under this sub‑heading, the Honourable Court shall decipher whether the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025 was merited.From the Notice of Motion application, the affidavits and the annexed exhibits the following issues fell for determination:a.Whether the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the urgent interim reliefs sought (restraint of interference with water supply; restraining the 6th, 7th Defendants and the Defendants’ guard from the property; citation for contempt; supervision by DCI/OCS).b.Whether the Plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm if interim relief was refused.c.Whether the balance of convenience favoured the grant of the interim measures.d.Whether, on the material before the Court, contempt proceedings were justified. 143.The 2nd Plaintiff’s sworn affidavit of 12th September, 2025 (27 paragraphs) set out the history of the litigation, the prior orders of this Court (11th March, 2025; 25th March, 2025; 24th July, 2025), service on the Defendants, and repeated breaches. The affidavit alleged that on 3rd September, 2025 the Defendants’ guard cut the 2nd Plaintiff’s water pipe in three places; OB No. 69 of 04/09/25 was filed at Diani Police Station; the guard was arrested and charged for malicious damage (charge sheet annexed). The affidavit further alleged continuing obstruction of lawful water‑supply options (blocking Kwale Water from installing a meter), prior interference with water infrastructure, and a pattern of coordinated acts by the 6th and 7th Defendants and their agents. 144.Taken at the interlocutory stage and on the assumption that the pleaded facts are correct, the Plaintiffs disclosed arguable rights to possession, to uninterrupted access to water, and to enforcement of the Court’s earlier status‑quo orders. The documentary material (OB, charge sheet, photographs of cut pipe sections in police custody, prior Court orders) supported the pleaded facts. On that basis the Plaintiffs established a prima facie case that merited urgent protection. 145.The severing of the only operative water supply hose in three places, the continuing prevention of lawful installation of a private meter, and the repeated interference with utilities and personal security were harms that could not be adequately remedied by damages alone. Loss of water, repeated malicious damage to essential infrastructure, and the risk of further malicious acts to property and persons (including a minor child) constituted irreparable harm. The evidence of police OBs and a charge sheet corroborated the allegation that the acts were deliberate and criminal in character, increasing the risk of further irreparable injury. 146.The Plaintiffs were in occupation and sought preservation of the status quo and protection of essential services. The Defendants’ alleged conduct — cutting pipes, obstructing meter installation, and retaining a guard who had been charged with malicious damage — weighed heavily in favour of immediate protective measures. Any prejudice to the Defendants from interim restraint (limited in scope and time) was outweighed by the risk to the Plaintiffs’ health, safety and property. The balance of convenience therefore favoured the Plaintiffs. 147.The Court’s earlier orders were clear in their terms (status quo to be maintained; specific restraint on interference). The record showed service on the Defendants. The evidence of repeated breaches, culminating in the deliberate cutting of the water pipe and the arrest and charging of the Defendants’ guard, satisfied the three elements required to justify contempt proceedings: (i) the terms of the order; (ii) knowledge by the respondents; and (iii) failure to comply. Willfulness was properly inferred on the material before the Court. The Plaintiffs were therefore entitled to seek that the Defendants be cited for contempt and that penal and coercive measures be considered in due course. 148.The Defendants had previously raised procedural and factual defences in other applications (for example, challenges to the precise wording or date of an originating application, or assertions that certain works were lawful or on private plots). Those contentions were matters for full hearing. At the interlocutory stage they did not displace the urgent need to protect life, safety and essential utilities where credible evidence of deliberate malicious acts existed. The Court must, however, ensure that any interim relief is proportionate and carefully tailored so as not to prejudice the Defendants’ right to be heard on the merits. 149.On the evidence and submissions before the Court the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025 is merited. The Plaintiffs established a prima facie case, demonstrated irreparable harm, and showed that the balance of convenience favoured urgent interim protection. The material also justified the initiation of contempt proceedings against those shown to have willfully disobeyed the Court’s orders. 150.Once more, I hold that the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025 is merited. The Plaintiffs have satisfied the interlocutory thresholds and the Court was justified in granting urgent, proportionate and carefully tailored interim relief to protect life, safety, essential services and the authority of its earlier orders. The Defendants remained entitled to raise and prove their defences at the substantive hearing; the interim relief was protective and without prejudice to those rights. ISSUE No. h). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025 is merited. 151.Under this sub‑heading, the Honourable Court shall decipher whether the Notice of Motion application dated 16th October 2025 was merited. Under this sub – title I note the issue of determination being as follows:-a.Whether the Applicants established a proper basis to seek rectification of the Court order of 11th March, 2025 (correction of the date of the Certificate of Urgency and Notice of Motion application from 10th March, 2025 to 18th February, 2025).b.Whether the proposed rectification would cause injustice or prejudice to the Respondents.c.Whether the Applicants’ conduct (late filings; alleged misstatements about service) disentitles them to relief. 152.The provision of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 empowers the Court to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or orders, or errors arising from accidental slips or omissions. The rationale is that the Court’s record should reflect its true intention, and minor errors should not be allowed to distort or undermine the administration of justice. The provision of Sections 1, 1A, 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 preserves the Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. It is a safeguard against technicalities being used to defeat substantive justice. Further under the provision Order 40 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 allows variation or discharge of an injunction or order where circumstances justify. It recognizes that orders are not immutable and can be adjusted to reflect the realities of the case. 153.I take notice of the provision of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 directs courts to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. This constitutional imperative ensures that minor clerical errors do not derail substantive justice. 154.In case of:- “Philip Chemwolo & Another – Versus - Augustine Kubende [1982-88] KAR 103”, the Court of Appeal held that blunders will continue to be made and it does not follow that because a mistake has been made a party should suffer the penalty of not having their case determined on its merits. 155.Further in the case of:- “D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd (Supra)”, the Court emphasized that suits should not be dismissed on technical grounds if they disclose a semblance of a cause of action. Similarly, in the case:- “Shimmers Plaza Limited – Versus - National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] eKLR”, the Court reiterated that obedience to court orders is mandatory, but clerical errors do not negate the validity of an otherwise clear order. 156.The order of 11th March, 2025 mistakenly referred to the application date as 10th March, 2025 instead of 18th February 2025.The Applicants explained that the error arose from the electronic transfer date when the matter was registered in the Environment and Land Court system. Certainly, this is a classic clerical slip, not a substantive defect.The Defendants’ Replying Affidavit of 16th June, 2025 acknowledged the correct date of 18th February, 2025, showing they were not misled or prejudiced.No application was filed by the Defendants to set aside the order on account of the clerical error. Their own pleadings confirm awareness of the true date. 157.I take note that rectification would not alter substantive rights or cause injustice. It merely aligns the record with the true date of filing.The Respondents’ opposition focused on alleged misconduct by the Applicants (late filings, denial of service), but these do not negate the fact that the error was clerical and non‑substantive. 158.The provision Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution empower the Court to correct such errors to uphold substantive justice. The correction ensures clarity in the record and prevents unnecessary technical objections. It is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to prevent injustice. 159.The Applicants establish a proper basis to seek rectification of the Court order of 11th March, 2025. The error was clerical, non‑substantive, and its correction would not prejudice the Respondents. Therefore, the application meets the threshold under the provision Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. ISSUE No. i). Whether the Notices of Motion applications dated 11th February, 2026 is merited. 160.Under this sub‑heading, the Honourable Court shall decipher whether the Notices of Motion application dated 11th February, 2026 (Applications A and B) are merited. Under this sub – title, the Court determine:-a.Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case warranting a judicial site visit (Application A).b.Whether the Applicants established a prima facie case warranting restoration orders and injunctive relief (Application B).c.Whether irreparable harm has been demonstrated.d.Whether the balance of convenience favours the Applicants.e.Whether contempt proceedings and penal consequences are justified. 161.From time to time it becomes necessary for the court to visit a site with a view to helping it reach a just decision in a matter. It must however be remembered that all decisions of the court are based on an interpretation of facts and the law. Facts are to be presented before the court as evidence whether oral or written. Evidence is the sole route through which parties introduce their version of facts before the court. In an adversarial system the burden of proof is always on he who alleges and the court never goes out to seek facts on its own. It is always incumbent on parties to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the facts which they assert. On the other hand the law can be cited by parties in pleadings or submissions. The court can access the law on its own. Needless to state, parties are free to urge the court to interpret the law one way or the other. 162.If the court visits a site, it can only be for purposes of receiving evidence which will assist it make a just decision. So long as a site visit is incapable of yielding any evidence or for that matter any admissible evidence then the judge will be no better than a tourist satisfying curiosities and taking photographs during the site visit. A court in session must perform judicial functions and must resist distractions that take it away from its mission. 163.The legal rationale for conducting a site visit (“Locus in Quo”) is provided for under the provision of Orders 18 Rule 11 and 40 Rule 10 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 as follows:-The Court may at any stage of the suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise.While Order 40 Rule 10 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Rules provide:-The Court may, on the application of any party to a suit and on such terms as it thinks fit:a).make an order for detention, preservation, or inspection of any property which is the subject – matter of such suit, or as to which any question may arise therein” 164.The need for a site visit to be an occasion for inspecting the situation on the ground in the nature of a hearing has been reiterated by the Court of Appeal in “Cyrus Nyaga kabute – Versus - Kirinyaga County Council [1987] eKLR” where the court stated as follows:“…it is established law that when magistrate or judge visits land and makes notes, the parties should be given chance to agree or deny or contradict the notes on oath, if those notes were to be relied upon in judgment. In Fernandes – Versus - Noronha [1969] EA 506 at page 508, Duffus V P as he then was stated.“ ….. the Judge although reluctantly, did the Locus in quo, but unfortunately there is no report of his visit, on the record although this is mentioned in his Judgment.The judge does not in this case appear to have relied on any of his own observations, but in cases where the court finds it expedient to visit a Locus in quo, the court should make a note of what took place during the visit in its record and this note should be either agreed to by the advocates or at least read out to them, and if a witness points out any place or demonstrates any movement to the court then this witness should be recalled by the court and give evidence of what occurred.” 165.In the recent case of:- “Parkire Stephen Munkasio & 14 others (suing on their own behalf and behalf of their families and all the members of the Maasai community living on land reference no.8396 ( I.R. 11977) situated in Kedong) – Versus - Kedong Ranch Limited & 8 others [2015] eKLR”, after parties had closed their respective cases the Petitioners sought to stay the delivery of the judgment and asked that the court do pay a site visit to the suit property in order to establish and confirm the position on actual occupation and the alleged violations against the Applicants. They applied to be allowed to adduce additional evidence and make more submissions. Munyao J. stated as follows: 25.At the outset, I need to emphasis that it is the duty of litigants to place material in support of their case. It is not the mandate of the court to go on a fact finding mission. If the Petitioners wanted to press the fact of occupation through additional evidence, they had avenues to do so, right from the time the Petition was filed, or even after receiving the responses of the Respondents, who questioned whether the Petitioners were actually in occupation of the suit land, especially given that in Nakuru ELC No. 21 of 2010, the court held that the Petitioners, or the persons that they represent, were not in occupation. The Petitioners had therefore been alerted in good time that the issue of occupation would be contested. They had time to get a land economist or surveyor to go to the ground and file a report. They did not do so. I also note that in the course of these proceedings, the Petitioners sought leave to file further affidavits, which leave was granted. They should have taken advantage of this leave to put their house in order. Neither was I impressed by the ground that counsel who held brief for Prof. Ojienda, forgot to apply for a site visit or for leave to file a further affidavit. 26.There was no proof of such instructions, and neither was there any affidavit coming from Mr. Biko (who held brief for Prof. Ojienda at the hearing of the petition), that he had overlooked some instructions. It is a serious issue for a party to apply to call in further evidence after a matter has been heard. The greatest risk, of course, is that the other parties to the suit stand to be prejudiced, for they have already presented their case and have revealed all their cards. It will need to be an extremely exceptional case to allow a party to call additional evidence after a hearing has been closed. I can probably only fathom a situation where the applicant has come across evidence which it could not have come across, despite adequate due diligence, such as where the other party has deliberately concealed it, and which evidence is critical for the determination of the issues in the case. This court would not wish to make precedent that a party is free to apply to reopen his case merely to seal loopholes revealed at the hearing of the suit or after the submissions of the other party. It is for the above reasons that I declined to exercise my discretion and declined to allow the application by the Petitioners to reopen the case. 166.The Applicants alleged that the Defendants, in violation of the status quo order of 11th March, 2025, constructed walls of 8–20 feet on and adjacent to their property (Sawa Sawa Cottage, LR Kwale/Diani Beach/783). The affidavit of Ashminder Kaur annexed photographs of the walls, stated that two walls were built under her roof, and one wall extended the boundary wall beyond lawful height, damaging her property. She further averred that the construction was overseen by the 6th and 7th Defendants, reported to NEMA, NCA, Kwale Planning Department, and Diani Police Station, but no remedial action was taken. The Applicants argued that a judicial site visit would allow the Court to appreciate the scale and location of the walls, the obstruction of water supply, and the extent of contempt of court orders. 167.On these facts, the Applicants disclosed arguable rights to property and quiet enjoyment, supported by documentary evidence (photographs, OB reports, prior court orders). The allegations involve physical encroachment and structural damage, which are best appreciated by direct observation. 168.The Applicants have established a prima facie case warranting a judicial site visit. The request is consistent with Orders 18 Rule 11 and 40 Rule 10 ( 1 ) ( a ) of the Rules, supported by evidence, and would assist the Court in appreciating the physical facts underlying the dispute. The site visit would not prejudice the Respondents but would enhance the Court’s ability to determine whether contempt and violation of property rights occurred. 169.On whether the Applicants established a prima facie case warranting restoration orders and injunctive relief (Application B). the provision of Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs interlocutory injunctions and empowers the Court to restrain parties from interfering with property rights pending determination of a suit.The Applicants annexed photographs showing walls built on and adjacent to their property, allegedly in violation of the status quo order of 11th March, 2025. 170.The affidavit detailed that two walls were built under her roof and one wall extended the boundary wall beyond lawful height, damaging her property. Reports were made to NEMA, NCA, Kwale Planning Department, and Diani Police Station, but no remedial action was taken.The Applicants also produced a letter from Utunzi Ltd threatening her neighbour, who supplied her with water, thereby interfering with her only water source. These facts disclose arguable rights to property, quiet enjoyment, and access to water, satisfying the threshold in “Mrao (supra)”. 171.The Applicants demonstrated deprivation of water supply, obstruction of utilities, destruction of property, and loss of rental income from Airbnb bookings. Deprivation of water is not merely an inconvenience but a violation of a constitutional right under Article 43. The loss of tenants and reputational damage to her business cannot be adequately compensated by damages alone. This limb is satisfied under “Nguruman (supra)”. 172.The Applicants are in possession and seek preservation of their property and water supply. The Respondents’ alleged conduct — building walls in defiance of court orders and threatening water suppliers — undermines the Court’s authority and risks further harm. The balance of convenience favours restraining the Respondents and restoring the property to its prior state, as preservation of rights outweighs any inconvenience to the Respondents 173.Further on the Contempt of Court orders, the Applicants have shown deliberate disobedience of the Court’s orders of 11th March, 2025, 25th March, 2025, and 24th July, 2025. Applying “Mweru (supra)”, the elements of contempt are satisfied: clear terms of the order, knowledge by the Respondents, and willful disobedience. 174.The Applicants have established a prima facie case warranting restoration orders and injunctive relief. They demonstrated irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favours them. The Respondents’ conduct constitutes contempt of court and undermines the authority of the Court. I make a finding that the Application by the Plaintiffs which in this Ruling I have marked as Notice of Motion application dated 11th February, 2026 (B) is merited. ISSUE No. J. What remedies and reliefs are appropriate in the circumstances. 175.The facts and affidavits show repeated, deliberate interference with the Plaintiffs’ possession, utilities and safety and apparent breaches of the Court’s status‑quo orders. The remedies below are proportionate, enforceable, and tailored to (a) restore the Plaintiffs to the position before the breaches, (b) prevent further harm, and (c) preserve evidence and the Court’s authority pending final determination. 176.Being that the Court has found the Plaintiffs application to have merit, all the application are herein allowed while the Notice of Preliminary Objection are hereby dismissed.ISSUE No. d). Who shall bear the costs of the Notices of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May, 2025 and Notices of Preliminary Objection dated 25th July, 2025, the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 21st, March, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025, the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025 and Notices of Motion applications dated 11th February, 2026. 177.It is now well established that the issue of costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs mean the award a party is granted at the conclusion of a legal action or proceedings in any litigation. The Proviso of Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules Cap. 21 provides that: -“Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid. Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order.” 178.This statutory provision establishes that costs ordinarily follow the event, meaning that the successful party is entitled to costs unless the Court directs otherwise for good reason. 179.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. 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. 180.In the instant matter, the Court makes a finding that the Notice of Preliminary objection dated 14th May, 2025 be and is hereby allowed therefore the costs shall be borne by the Defendants/ Respondents. The Court reserves its discretion in not awarding the costs for the Notice of Preliminary objection dated 25th July, 2025. 181.The costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 21st, March, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025, the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025 and Notices of Motion applications dated 11th February, 2026 shall be borne by the Defendants/Respondents. XX. Conclusion and Disposition. 182.Ultimately, based on the indepth analysis of the farmed issues and having carefully considered the Notice of Motion applications dated 18th February 2025, 21st March 2025, 19th May 2025, 12th September 2025, 16th October 2025, and 11th February 2026 (A & B), together with the supporting affidavits sworn by the Plaintiffs/Applicants, the Replying Affidavits filed by the Defendants/Respondents, the Grounds of Opposition, and the written submissions of both parties, and having applied the relevant statutory provisions and case law, the Honourable Court arrives at the following conclusions:-a.That the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February 2025 filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants be and is hereby founded merited thus allowed, the Court being satisfied that the Applicants demonstrated a prima facie case and irreparable harm absent interim protection.b.That the Notice of Motion dated 21st March 2025 filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants be and is hereby found to be merited and hence allowed, the Court finding that contempt of its earlier orders was sufficiently established.c.That the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 14th May, 2025 do and is hereby found to lack merit and is hereby overruled.d.That the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th July, 2025 be and is hereby found to lack merit thus overruled.e.That the Notice of Motion application dated 19th May 2025 filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants be and is hereby found to be merited thus allowed, the Court noting the continuing disobedience of lawful orders and the need for further protective relief.f.That the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September 2025 filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants be and is hereby found to be merited and hence allowed, the Court being persuaded that urgent intervention was necessary to safeguard the Applicants’ water supply and security.g.That the Notice of Motion application dated 16th October 2025 filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants be and is hereby found to be merited and thus allowed, with rectification of the clerical error in the order of 11th March 2025, the Court exercising its inherent jurisdiction under the provision of Section 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 to correct accidental slips.h.That the Notices of Motion application dated 11th February 2026 (Applications A & B) filed by the Plaintiffs/Applicants be and are hereby found to be merited and thus allowed, with orders for a judicial site visit, restoration of the property, and injunctive relief as prayed, the Court being satisfied that physical inspection and remedial measures are indispensable to the just resolution of the dispute.i.That the Defendants/Respondents are cited for contempt of the Court’s orders dated 11th March 2025, 25th March 2025, and 24th July 2025, and penal consequences shall follow upon hearing of the contempt proceedings, the Court reiterating that obedience to court orders is not optional but mandatory.j.That the Defendants/Respondents shall forthwith restore the Applicants’ water supply and desist from interfering with the Applicants’ access to water from their neighbour or any other lawful source, in recognition of the Applicants’ constitutional right to clean and safe water. Arti 42k.That the Defendants/Respondents shall remove the walls constructed on and adjacent to the Applicants’ property and restore the property to its prior state under the supervision of a qualified structural engineer appointed by agreement or by the Court, to ensure structural integrity and compliance with planning regulations.l.That in default of compliance within fourteen (14) days, the Applicants are at liberty to undertake restoration at the Defendants’ cost, recoverable against the deposit ordered herein, the Court thereby safeguarding against further delay or obstruction.m.That the 2nd, 6th and 7th Defendants shall deposit into Court the sum of Kenya Shillings Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand (Kshs. 350,000/=) as security for restoration costs WITHIN SEVEN (7) DAYS, the Court ensuring availability of funds for execution of its orders.n.That the Directorate of Criminal Investigations and OCS Diani shall supervise compliance with these orders and file a report WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, the Court thereby ensuring accountability and transparency in enforcement.o.That the costs of the Notice of Preliminary objection dated 14th May, 2025 be and is hereby allowed therefore the costs shall be borne by the Defendants/ Respondents. The Court reserves its discretion in not awarding the costs for the Notice of Preliminary objection dated 25th July, 2025. The costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 18th February, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 21st, March, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 19th May, 2025, the Notice of Motion application dated 12th September, 2025, Notice of Motion application dated 16th October, 2025 and Notices of Motion applications dated 11th February, 2026 shall be borne by the Defendants/ Respondents in accordance with the provision of Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 the Court affirming that costs follow the event.IT IS SO ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAM VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS……5TH ……DAY OF ………MAY…..……..……..2026.……………..…………………….HON. MR. JUSTICE L. L. NAIKUNI,ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KWALERuling delivered in the presence of:a. Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant.b. Mr. Kivuva Advocate for the Plaintiffs; andc. Mr. James Owino Advocate for Defendants.