https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3901

Republic v Chief Land Registrar & another; Criticos & another (Ex parte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E011 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 3901 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3901 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E011 of 2023 CG Mbogo, J June 29, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and Chief Land Registrar 1st Respondent Attorney-General 2nd Respondent and Hon. Basil Criticos Ex parte Applicant H.E. Mama Ngina Kenyatta Ex parte Applicant Ruling 1.Before this court for determination is the notice of motion dated 5th March, 2026 filed by the exparte applicant/decree holder, and it is expressed to be brought under Articles 10 (2)(b) of the Constitution, Sections 2A, 34 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, Sections 2, 13 and 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and Section 5 (1) of the Judicature Act seeking the following orders:-1.Spent.2.The Chief Land Registrar be summoned to court and explain why the court order dated 11th December 2025 has not been complied.3.The Chief Land Registrar be ordered to gazette within 14 days of the court order the cancellation and revocation of all illegal titles emanating from LR. No. 10287/7 (IR 252528/1) and file the compliance report in court within 7 days of gazettement.4.The court be at liberty to make any orders in the interest of justice to compel compliance of the court order.5.Costs of this application. 2.The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the affidavit of the 1st exparte applicant/decree holder sworn on even date. The 1st exparte applicant/decree holder deposed that the 1st respondent has refused to issue the provisional certificate of title over the suit property as per the orders of this court issued on 11th December, 2025 despite reminders and registration of the court order against the suit property. These reminders were issued on 17th December, 2025 and 13th January, 2026. Further, that the court order was registered against the title on 22nd January, 2026. 3.The application was opposed vide the replying affidavit of Nyandoro David Nyambaso, an employee of the 1st respondent sworn on 20th April, 2026. The 1st respondent deposed that the court decree has been registered and a provisional title prepared. However, the 1st respondent was not able to release the same as there was discrepancy on the transfer instrument transferring the title from Mama Ngina Kenyatta and Basil Criticos to Basil Criticos. This is because the transfer instrument was attested to by DA Gama Ross who is deceased, and there was need to clarify from the court as to the effect of the instrument, and its validity. 4.The 1st respondent further deposed that LR. No. 10287/7 has already been planned, surveyed, and demarcated and is awaiting issuance of title deeds to the squatters. Further, that the plea to have the same gazetted within 14 days for cancellation and revocation has no basis and will be contrary to the due process of law. 5.In response thereto, the 1st exparte applicant/decree holder filed his further affidavit sworn on 21st April, 2026. He deposed that it is incomprehensible how the 1st respondent contradicts himself and the contents of the internal memo dated 9th August, 2020 in Voi ELC No. 3 of 2024. Further, that the matter is res judicata and the court is functus officio and cannot re-open the case on the basis of evidence that was never before the court. The 1st exparte applicant/decree holder deposed that the actions of the 1st respondent is an offence under Sections 112 and 117 (b) of the Penal Code. 6.The application was canvassed through written submissions. The 1st exparte applicant/decree holder filed his written submissions dated 11th May, 2026. By the time of writing this ruling, the respondents had not filed their written submissions. Be that as it may, I have considered the application, the replies thereof and the written submissions already filed. The issue for determination is whether the 1st respondent is in contempt of the orders of this court issued on 11th December 2025. 7.The law is very clear on the obedience of the court orders and gives consequences of such disobedience. Order 40 Rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that:-“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 six months unless in the meantime the court directs his release”. 8.Further Section 63 (c) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that: -“In order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated, the court may if it is prescribed; grant a temporary injunction and in case of disobedience convict the person guilty thereof to prison and order that his property be attached and sold”. 9.The provisions of the Environment and Land Act also buttress the above position. Section 29 of the said Act reads as follows: -“Any person who refuses, fails or neglects to obey an order or direction of the court given under this Act, commits an offence, and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding twenty million shillings or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both”. 10.The above provisions of the law are clear that court orders must be obeyed and in case of disobedience, a party is liable for punishment through payment of a fine or to imprisonment to jail. This court frowns upon litigants who are out to ensure that justice is defeated and in doing so, make a mockery out of the judicial system. On 11th December 2025, this court issued orders none of which has been complied with. The reasons advanced by the 1st respondent for failure to comply with these orders have been previously raised in their replying affidavit sworn on 8th July, 2025 and there is nothing more to deliberate further on this. 11.In the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others versus National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR the court held that:-“A court without contempt power is not a court. [30] The contempt power (both in its civil and criminal form) is so innate in the concept of jurisdictional authority that a court that could not secure compliance with its own judgments and orders is a contradiction in terms, an “oxymoron.” Contempt power is something regarded as intrinsic to the notion of court; even obvious, I would say. In the common lawyer’s eye, the power of contempt “is inherent in courts, and automatically exists by its very nature…If courts are to perform their duties and functions effectively and remain true to the spirit which they are sacredly entrusted with, the dignity and authority of the courts has to be respected and protected at all costs. Otherwise the very cornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way and with it will disappear the rule of law and a civilized life in the society. It is for this purpose that courts are entrusted with the extraordinary power of punishing those who indulge in acts whether inside or outside courts which tend to undermine their authority and bring them in disrepute and disrespect by scandalizing them and obstructing them from discharging their duties. When the court exercises this power, it does so to uphold the majesty of the law and of the administration of justice. The foundation of judiciary is the trust and confidence of the people in its ability to deliver fearless and impartial justice. When the foundation itself is shaken by acts which tend to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of the court by creating distrust in its working the edifice of the judicial system gets eroded.33.It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law and order that the authority and the dignity of courts is upheld at all times. The court will not condone deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy away from its responsibility to deal firmly with proved contemnors. It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of whom, an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or void.[32]34.It is the duty of the court not to condone deliberate disobedience of its orders nor waiver from its responsibility to deal decisively and firmly with contemnors.[33] The court does not, and ought not be seen to make orders in vain; otherwise the court would be exposed to ridicule, and no agency of the constitutional order would then be left in place to serve as a guarantee for legality, and for the rights of all people.[34]” 12.While I place reliance on the above authority, the 1st respondent is aware of the orders of the court arising from the judgment delivered therein yet has chosen not to obey the same. There is therefore no doubt that the 1st respondent is in contempt of the orders of the court issued on 11th December, 2025. 13.From the above, I find merit in the notice of motion dated 5th March 2026 and I grant the following orders:-i.The Chief Land Registrar is hereby summoned to appear in court on 28th July, 2026 at 2.30 p.m. court and explain why he should not be punished for being in contempt.ii.Failure to comply with order i. above, warrants of arrest to issue.iii.The Chief Land Registrar is hereby ordered to gazette within 7 days from the date hereof, the cancellation and revocation of all illegal titles emanating from LR. No. 10287/7 (IR 252528/1) and file the compliance report in court within 7 days of gazettement.iv.The 1st exparte applicant/decree holder is awarded costs of the application.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. MBOGO C.G.JUDGE29/06/2026.In the presence of:Ms. Benson Agunga - Court assistantMr. Allen W. Gichuhi for the 1st Ex-parte/ApplicantMr. Allan Kamau for the Respondents