https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4058

Sidhu & another (Suing as the Executors of the Estate of Raghbir Singh Sidhu) v Koskei & 5 others (Environment and Land Case 200 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 4058 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4058 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Case 200 of 2015 CK Yano, J July 2, 2026 Between Davinder Kaur Sidhu 1st Plaintiff Sanjeev Patel 2nd Plaintiff Suing as the Executors of the Estate of Raghbir Singh Sidhu and Kipkemboi Arap Koskei 1st Defendant Geoffrey Tenai 2nd Defendant The Commissioner Of Lands 3rd Defendant The County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County 4th Defendant The National Land Commission 5th Defendant The Attorney General 6th Defendant Ruling 1.The subject of this ruling is the Plaintiff/Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 19th January, 2026 seeking for orders that:-1.Spent2.The County Land Registrar - Uasin Gishu County be and is hereby summoned to personally attend court on a date to be fixed to show cause why he/she should not be punished for contempt for failure to comply with and implement the Judgment delivered on 21-12-2018 and Decree issued on 27-03-2025 in this suit.3.Pending the determination of contempt, the County Land Registrar - Uasin Gishu County do show cause why the register in respect of Eldoret Municipality Block 13/265 has not been rectified by deleting the 2nd Defendant’s name and re-entering the Plaintiff as the registered proprietor as at the date of the expiry of the lease, as ordered by this court in its Judgment delivered on 21-12-2018 and Decree issued on 27-03-2025.4.UPON failure by the Land Registrar - Uasin Gishu County to satisfactorily show cause, this Honourable Court be pleased to find and hold Land Registrar - Uasin Gishu County to be in contempt of the Judgment delivered on 21-12-2018 and Decree issued on 27-03-2025 and the consequential Decree extracted therefrom.5.CONSEQUENT upon a finding of contempt this Honourable Court do impose appropriate sanctions, including committal to civil jail for such period as the Court shall deem fit and/or payment of a fine personally by the Land Registrar - Uasin Gishu County.6.The Hon. Court be pleased to direct the County Land Registrar - Uasin Gishu County, to rectify the register for Eldoret Municipality 13/265 in strict conformity with the Judgment delivered on 21-12-2018 and Decree issued on 27-03-2025 within thirty (30) days. A copy of the extract of white card reflecting the amendments be filed in Court immediately.7.The Hon. Court be pleased to issue further or other coercive orders, as may secure immediate compliance with the Judgment delivered on 21-12-2018 and Decree issued on 27-03-2025, including a fixed timeline for rectification of the register for Eldoret Municipality Block 13/265 (as per clause 6 above) and registration of the renewed lease in favour of DAVINDER KAUR SIDHU & SANJEEV PATEL (Executors of the Estate of Raghbir Sing Sidhu).8.The Hon. Court direct be pleased to direct the National Land Commission, to conclude consideration of the Plaintiff’s extension application for Eldoret Municipality Block 13/265 and communicate a reasoned decision within sixty (60) days, in strict conformity with the Judgment delivered on 21-12-2018 and Decree issued on 27-03-2025. A copy be filed in this Court.9.The costs of and incidental to this application be borne personally by the County Land Registrar - Uasin Gishu County in favour of the Plaintiff.10.ANY other such reliefs that may be granted by the Hon. Court as it deems fit. 2.The application is premised on the grounds set out in the Motion and supported by an Affidavit sworn on 19th January, 2026 by Davinder Kaur Sidhu and Sanjeev Patel, the Applicants herein. They deponed that they were appointed executors of the estate of Raghbir Singh Sidhu, the Plaintiff herein in Eldoret HCP&A No. 23 of 2021, and were substituted in his place vide Ruling delivered by the Court of Appeal on 04.11.2022 in Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2019. 3.The Applicants deponed that this court delivered a judgment on 21.12.2018 declaring the 2nd Defendant’s registration over Eldoret Municipality Block 13/265 (the suit property) irregular, and ordering an amendment of the register by deleting his name and re-entering the Plaintiff’s name. That the Court further directed the 5th Respondent to consider the Plaintiff’s application for extension of lease. Further, that the said judgment was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 24.01.2025 in Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2019. The Applicants state that a formal decree was extracted and issued on 27.03.2025 in terms of the judgment of this court. 4.The Applicants claim that Plaintiff’s advocates formally served the Decree and judgments of this Court and the Court of Appeal upon the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County. That they have subsequently issued reminders as well as visited the land office, yet no rectification has been effected. The Applicants aver that upon service, the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County demanded that they serve them with certified typed proceedings, and they complied. 5.The Applicants claim that on 02.04.2025, the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu wrote to the Deputy Registrar, Environment and Land Court to confirm and verify the authenticity of the Judgment and Decree, which was done vide letter dated 10.04.2025. The Applicants state that despite compliance, seven years from the date of judgment have lapsed, yet the register for the suit property is yet to be amended. The Applicants aver that the Judgment and Decree are clear, unambiguous and binding on all parties and on the Land Registrar by virtue of Section 14 of the Environment & Land Court Act and Sections 79-81 of the Land Registration Act. 6.The Applicants assert that the County Land Registrar’s knowledge of the decree and personal service thereof and their continued inaction is unlawful and contemptuous. That their advocate on record wrote a letter dated 26.05.2025 to no avail. They aver that the failure to effect the decree has denied them enjoyment of the fruits of a valid judgment, including registration and quiet possession of the suit property. That it has also occasioned them undue hardship and uncertainty over the title. 7.The Applicants explained that the Notice to Show Cause will give the County Land Registrar an opportunity to explain any operational constraints and commit to a compliance plan. That if no cause is shown, the court ought to find contempt and issue appropriate sanctions, and give concrete directions and timelines for rectification and lease processing. They urge that it is in the interest of justice and best interest of the Plaintiff that the orders sought are granted. They deponed that the present application was made promptly and in utmost good faith, and asked the court to allow the application as prayed. 8.The application was served on the firm of M/s Bundotich Korir and Company Advocates and the Attorney General on 06.02.2026. Despite the court adjourning the hearing of the application on two occasions, no response was filed. Submissions: 9.On 29.04.2026, the court issued directions that parties do file written submissions on the application. Counsel for the Applicants informed the court that there being no response, they would rely on the grounds and the Supporting Affidavit. The Respondents however did not file any submissions opposing the Application. Analysis and Determination: 10.This court has considered the present application, the supporting affidavit and the annexures thereto. The only issues for determination are:-i.Whether the 4th Defendant is in contempt of the Decree extracted from the judgment of 21.12.2018;ii.Whether the Court should direct the 5th Defendant to consider the Plaintiff’s application for renewal/extension of lease;iii.Who shall bear the costs of the present Application? a. Whether the 4th Defendant is in contempt of the Decree extracted from the judgment of 21.12.2018 11.The Applicants have brought this application claiming that the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County, who is the 4th Defendant herein, is in contempt of the judgment and decree issued by this court. Contempt of court refers to conduct or actions that defy or disrespect the authority or dignity of a court. The Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition defines contempt as:-“The act or state of despising; the conduct of being despised. Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court or legislature. Because such conduct interferes with the administration of justice.” 12.It goes without saying that the effectiveness of the judicial process depends upon obedience to court orders. Therefore, any deliberate disregard of such orders undermines the rule of law and erodes public confidence in the administration of justice. The power to punish for contempt of court is thus meant to uphold the authority of the Courts, safeguard the administration of justice and ensure compliance with lawful court orders. 13.The importance of obeying court orders was underscored in Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd vs Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & another (2005) KLR 828, where Ibrahim, J. (as he then was) held that:-“It is essential for the maintenance of the rule of law and order that the authority and the dignity of our courts are upheld at all times. The Court will not condone deliberate disobedience of its orders and will not shy away from its responsibility to deal firmly with proved contemnors. It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against whom an order is made by court of competent jurisdiction, to obey it unless and until the order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by the order believes it to be irregular or void.” 14.It is for this reason that courts are vested with the jurisdiction to punish acts of contempt where the circumstances so warrant. In this regard, Section 5 of the Judicature Act confers jurisdiction upon the superior courts to punish for contempt of court. In addition, this Court is empowered to punish for contempt under Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, which provides as follows:-29.OffencesAny 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. 15.The elements required to prove contempt were set out in the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others vs National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] KEHC 9233 (KLR), to be:-a.the terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the defendant;b.the alleged contemnor had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order;c.the alleged contemnor has acted in breach of the terms of the order; andd.the alleged contemnor’s conduct was deliberate. 16.The first element that an applicant must establish in contempt proceedings is that the terms of the court order were clear, unambiguous, and binding upon the alleged contemnor, who as indicated, is the County Land Registrar (the 4th Defendant). The rationale for this requirement is that a party cannot be held in contempt for disobeying an order whose terms are uncertain or incapable of clear understanding. Accordingly, the court must first be satisfied that the order clearly set out the obligations imposed upon the respondent and that those obligations admitted of no ambiguity. 17.In this instance, the judgment delivered by this court (differently constituted) on 21.12.2018 indeed found that the 2nd Defendant’s title flowed from an irregularity. The Court thus directed that the register of the suit property be rectified by removing the 2nd Defendant’s name and re-entering the Plaintiff’s name as the registered proprietor as at the expiry of the lease. 18.The 2nd Defendant lodged an appeal against the judgment of this court vide Eldoret Appeal No. 106 of 2019. This Appeal was dismissed vide judgment delivered on 24.01.2025. Upon dismissal of the Appeal, the Trial Court’s judgment was extracted in the Decree issued on 27th March, 2025 in the following terms:-“The registration in respect of the suit property be rectified and the 2nd Defendants name to be deleted and the name of the plaintiff to be re-entered as the registered proprietor as at the expiry of the lease and the 5th defendant to consider the application of the extension of the lease by the plaintiff that is pending determination.” 19.From the foregoing extract, it is evident that the Decree and the orders issued therein were binding upon the parties and that their terms were clear, precise, and unambiguous. Accordingly, the first element has been satisfactorily established. 20.Secondly, it must be shown that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order. By virtue of the fact that no response was found, knowledge or the order is not disputed by the 4th Defendant. Nevertheless, the Applicants claim that they served the Judgments of this court and the Court of Appeal, alongside the Decree extracted on 27.03.2025. 21.While there is no proof of the purported service, I note that the Uasin Gishu County Lands Office did in fact write to this court vide letter dated 02.04.2025 seeking to verify that the decree attached to the said letter was issued by this court. A look at the said letter shows that the Decree attached thereto is the same one that was extracted on 27.03.2025. The Deputy Registrar, Environment and Land Court at Eldoret wrote back to the County Lands Office vide letter dated 10.04.2025 confirming that the Decree was genuine and authentic and attached a certified copy thereof for action. 22.It cannot be said therefore that the 4th Defendant was unaware of the Decree. On the contrary, the evidence demonstrates that the 4th Defendant actively sought to have the Decree verified and its contents authenticated. In the process, the 4th Defendant annexed a copy of the said decree in its letter of verification. The 4th Defendant was therefore not only aware of the existence of the Decree, but was also in possession of a copy thereof and took affirmative steps to verify its authenticity. To that end, the requirement of knowledge and/or notice of the order has been fully satisfied. 23.Having determined that the 4th Defendant was notified of the decree, the Applicants must show that the 4th Defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the decree. The Applicants have averred that it has been 7 years now since the passing of the Decree and yet the 4th Defendant, in disobedience of the decree in question has not rectified the register as instructed. 24.While it is true that the order is yet to be complied with, it is misleading to accuse the 4th Defendant of the 7-year delay. I have taken time to peruse the proceedings in the Court file and note that Counsel for the Applicants herein and Counsel for the 2nd Defendant entered into a consent on 05.11.2019. The terms of the said consent are that there be a stay of execution of the judgment of the court pending hearing and determination of Eldoret Civil Appeal No. 106 of 2019. The parties further agreed that the status quo obtaining at the date of judgment be maintained pending hearing and determination of the said appeal. The 4th Defendant therefore was precluded by the said consent from rectifying the register as ordered in the judgment until the appeal was determined, which was done on 21.01.2025. 25.I note that compliance in this instance would require cancellation of the 2nd Defendant’s title and the register relating thereto. It would also mean that the entry made on 28.02.2013 regarding issuance of a new lease to the 1st Defendant, who then transferred it to the 2nd Defendant herein would be removed and/or cancelled. However, the Applicants ought to have annexed evidence that the land is still registered in the name of the 2nd Defendant, or that the 2nd Defendant’s register and title has not been cancelled. 26.Since the lease had already expired, it is conceivable that, even if the Plaintiff’s name had been reinstated in the register, an official search of the suit property would not necessarily have reflected him as the registered proprietor. This is because the land essentially reverted to the Government of Kenya upon expiry of the lease. Nevertheless, in those circumstances, a current official search showing the 2nd Defendant as the registered proprietor would have sufficed to demonstrate non-compliance with the Decree. No such evidence has been placed before this Honourable Court. 27.Having failed to establish that the 4th Defendant disobeyed the Decree issued by this Honourable Court, the Applicants cannot satisfy the threshold for contempt. Consequently, the question of whether the 4th Defendant’s conduct was wilful or deliberate does not arise. In any event, the jurisdiction to punish for contempt is one that must be exercised with great care and circumspection. An order committing a person to civil jail for contempt is a draconian remedy and ought to be invoked only as a measure of last resort. 28.That aside, courts have consistently recognised that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature. Consequently, where a person’s liberty is at stake, the applicable standard of proof is higher than that in ordinary civil proceedings, though not as high as proof beyond reasonable doubt. This principle was reaffirmed in Mutitika vs Baharini Farm Ltd (1985) KECA 60 (KLR), where the Court of Appeal stated as follows:-“The courts, nevertheless take the view that where the liberty of the subject is, or might be, involved, the breach for which the alleged contemnor is cited must be precisely defined – see for instance Chiltern Districts Council v Keane, [1985] Law Society’s Gazette, 29th May page 1567.In, Re Breamblevale Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1062, Lord Denning MR. (as he then was), at page 1063, had this to say,‘A contempt of court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time– honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.’With the greatest possible respect to that eminent English judge, that proof is much too high for an offence “of a criminal character” and, ipso facto, not a criminal offence properly so defined.We agree with Mr. Khaminwa’s submissions in this respect. In our view the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt. We envisage no difficulty in courts determining the suggested standard of proof.” 29.Similarly, in Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others vs National Land Commission & 2 Others (supra), the Court underscored the heightened standard of proof applicable in civil contempt proceedings, observing as follows:“ 41.… On the face of our transformative constitution with an expanded Bill of Rights, a pertinent question warrants consideration. Do constitutional values permit a person to be put in prison to enforce compliance with a civil order when the requisites are established only preponderantly, and not conclusively? In my view, a high standard of proof applies whenever committal to prison for contempt is sought because contempt of Court is quasi-criminal in nature. 42.Two principals emerge. The first is liberty:- it is basic to our Constitution that a person should not be deprived of liberty, albeit only to constrain compliance with a court order, if reasonable doubt exists about the essentials. In this regard, I am not satisfied that wilful disregard of the court order has been established.” 30.The Court went on to hold that it is impermissible to find an alleged contemnor guilty of contempt in the absence of conclusive proof of the essential elements of contempt. In the present case, the Applicants have, at prayer 5 of the Motion, invited this Court, upon a finding of contempt, to impose appropriate sanctions against the 4th Defendant, including committal to civil jail. In light of the quasi-criminal nature of contempt proceedings and the serious consequences attendant upon a finding of contempt, the Applicants were required to discharge the heightened standard of proof. Having failed to establish the essential elements of contempt, the orders sought cannot issue. 31.In the present application, the Applicants have failed to demonstrate, to the requisite standard, that the 4th Defendant deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the orders contained in the Decree of this Court. Consequently, this Court is unable to find the 4th Defendant in contempt of the orders contained in the Judgment delivered on 21.12.2018. It follows, therefore, that prayers 1 to 7 of the Notice of Motion dated 19.01.2026, all of which are predicated on a finding of contempt, are devoid of merit and cannot be granted. b. Whether the Court should direct the 5th Defendant to consider the Plaintiff’s application for renewal/extension of lease 32.At prayer 8 of the Motion, the Applicants seek an order directing the 5th Defendant, the National Land Commission, to conclude its consideration of the Plaintiff's application for extension of the lease over the suit property. They further pray that the 5th Defendant be directed to communicate a reasoned decision on the application within sixty (60) days, in strict conformity with the Judgment of this Court, and to file a copy of that decision before this Court. 33.According to the Certificate of Official Search dated 14.05.2010, produced as part of PEX3, the late Raghbir Singh Sidhu was granted a ninety-nine (99) year lease over the suit property commencing on 01.10.1909. As observed by the Court of Appeal at paragraph 26 of its Judgment, the lease term expired in October 2008. The expiry of the lease was subsequently entered in the register of the suit property on 28.02.2013, as reflected in the Certified Copy of the Green Card produced as PEX8. 34.Both this Court and the Court of Appeal considered and determined the issue of the renewal or extension of the lease. Consequently, this Court is now functus officio in respect of that question and is precluded from making any further substantive determination thereon. What remains is the enforcement of the orders already issued, including the direction requiring the 5th Defendant to consider the Plaintiff’s pending application for extension of the lease. 35.It is common ground, and as was expressly noted by the Court of Appeal, that the Plaintiff lodged an application for extension of the lease, which remains pending determination. Indeed, in the Judgment delivered on 21.12.2018, this Court expressly directed the 5th Defendant to consider that application. That obligation has neither been varied nor set aside and therefore remains binding upon the 5th Defendant. 36.Notably, while this Court directed the 5th Defendant to consider the Plaintiff's application for extension of the lease, it did not prescribe the period within which that consideration was to be undertaken and concluded. Nevertheless, the applicable statutory framework imposes an obligation upon the National Land Commission to communicate its decision. In this regard, section 13(1A) of the Land Act provides as follows: 13.Lessee pre-emptive rights to allocation(1)…(1A)Where a lease is not granted after an application under subsection (1), the Commission shall give the lessee the reasons for granting the lease, in writing. 37.The effect of the foregoing provision is that the 5th Defendant is under a statutory duty not only to consider the Plaintiff's application for extension of the lease but also to communicate its decision and, where the application is declined, to furnish written reasons for that decision. Further, Article 35 of the Constitution, read together with the Access to Information Act, guarantees every person the right to access information held by a public entity and requires that such information be provided expeditiously and at a reasonable cost. 38.As already observed, this Court did not prescribe a timeline for compliance by the 5th Defendant. Nevertheless, a public body is expected to act within a reasonable time. However, despite the lapse of one year since the delivery of the Judgment by the Court of Appeal, the 5th Defendant has not concluded the consideration of the Plaintiff’s application. The 5th Defendant has also not communicated any decision it may have made on the said pending application. 39.It is evident that unless compelled to do so, there is a real risk that the Plaintiff’s estate will continue to remain in uncertainty regarding its rights over the suit property, a state of affairs that would undermine the Judgment of this Court. This Court therefore finds that the Applicants are entitled, both under the Judgment and by virtue of Article 35 of the Constitution and the applicable statutory framework, to be informed of the outcome of the pending application for extension of the lease. Accordingly, prayer 8 of the Motion is merited and is hereby allowed. c. Who shall bear the costs of the present Application? 40.On the issue of costs, it is now settled that costs ordinarily follow the event. This principle is codified under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, which vests the Court with discretion in the award of costs. As a general rule, a successful party is entitled to costs unless, for good reason, the Court orders otherwise. 41.In the present application, the Applicants sought a total of ten (10) substantive reliefs but have succeeded in respect of only one. In the circumstances, the Applicants cannot be said to have substantially succeeded in the present Motion. This Court is therefore satisfied that the interests of justice will be best served by directing that each party shall bear its own costs of the Application. Orders:- 42.Taking the foregoing into consideration, the application dated 19th January, 2026 partially succeeds and I hereby direct as follows:-a.The National Land Commission (the 5th Defendant) is hereby directed to conclude consideration of the Plaintiff’s extension application for Eldoret Municipality Block 13/265 and communicate a reasoned decision within ninety (90) days, in strict conformity with the Judgment delivered on 21-12-2018 and Decree issued on 27-03-2025 and file a copy the said communication and/or decision in this Court.b.Each party shall bear its own costs of this Application 43.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT ELDORET ON THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 VIDE MICROSOFT TEAMS.HON. C. K. YANOELC, JUDGEIn the presence of:-Ms. Rotich holding brief for Mr. Kamau for Plaintiff/Applicant.No appearance for Defendants.Court Assistant - Laban.