'1. The application dated 9/7/2025 seeks inter alia orders that the court do find the plaintiff through its directors to be in contempt of court. The names of the directors are given in the application.
2. It is alleged that they disobeyed this court’s orders issued on 1/2/2024 directing the preservation of the status quo. It is stated that the order was made in the presence of counsel for the plaintiff and service of the ruling was effected on the plaintiff’s advocates. Despite the order, the plaintiff’s agents have nevertheless continued to erect both permanent and semi-permanent developments on the suit land. They have even built structures in the homestead, at the doorstep of the defendant.
3. The plaintiff has filed grounds of opposition dated 1/10/2025. It is stated in those grounds that the plaintiff is in occupation of the land save for a small portion that the defendant occupies; that the status that has been obtaining is that the plaintiff has been in occupation of the suit land; that the persons mentioned in the defendant’s contempt application are simply agents and directors of the plaintiff who are doing things consistent with the plaintiff’s ownership of the land which the defendants can not stop in his capacity as a squatter.
4. At paragraph 19 of this court’s ruling dated 1/2/2024, the court noted that the plaintiff had stated from inception that there are other persons farming on the land but with its permission. In paragraph 20, it was noted that the defendant had admitted that the plaintiff was carrying on activities on the suit land.
5. It is clear that both parties are on the suit land. This complicates the situation and raises the bar that the defendant has to clear to establish contempt by way of interference with the suit land on the part of the plaintiff. However, the grounds of opposition dated 9/10/23 identify the portion occupied by the defendant being about 0.5 acres in size. That is the plaintiff’s own document. If this court has to issue the orders that the applicant is seeking he needs to make precise averments and demonstrate by way of scientific evidence that the plaintiff has interfered with the portion under his occupation. That is what may lead to the issuance of an order citing the plaintiff or its directors for contempt. The defendant was not short of options. The plaintiff has exhibited a map previously in these same proceedings which I perceive to be unopposed, and which gave the siting of the defendant’s homestead.
6. Considering the application and the supporting affidavit in their entirety, it can not be said that the applicant has established that the plaintiff has encroached on the portion that he occupies.
7. Consequently, there is no evidence upon which the court can cite the persons mentioned in the application dated 9/7/2024 and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. The suit shall be mentioned on 4/2/2026 for pretrial. The parties shall comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules before that date.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi on this 2nd day of December 2025.
'
2. It is alleged that they disobeyed this court’s orders issued on 1/2/2024 directing the preservation of the status quo. It is stated that the order was made in the presence of counsel for the plaintiff and service of the ruling was effected on the plaintiff’s advocates. Despite the order, the plaintiff’s agents have nevertheless continued to erect both permanent and semi-permanent developments on the suit land. They have even built structures in the homestead, at the doorstep of the defendant.
3. The plaintiff has filed grounds of opposition dated 1/10/2025. It is stated in those grounds that the plaintiff is in occupation of the land save for a small portion that the defendant occupies; that the status that has been obtaining is that the plaintiff has been in occupation of the suit land; that the persons mentioned in the defendant’s contempt application are simply agents and directors of the plaintiff who are doing things consistent with the plaintiff’s ownership of the land which the defendants can not stop in his capacity as a squatter.
4. At paragraph 19 of this court’s ruling dated 1/2/2024, the court noted that the plaintiff had stated from inception that there are other persons farming on the land but with its permission. In paragraph 20, it was noted that the defendant had admitted that the plaintiff was carrying on activities on the suit land.
5. It is clear that both parties are on the suit land. This complicates the situation and raises the bar that the defendant has to clear to establish contempt by way of interference with the suit land on the part of the plaintiff. However, the grounds of opposition dated 9/10/23 identify the portion occupied by the defendant being about 0.5 acres in size. That is the plaintiff’s own document. If this court has to issue the orders that the applicant is seeking he needs to make precise averments and demonstrate by way of scientific evidence that the plaintiff has interfered with the portion under his occupation. That is what may lead to the issuance of an order citing the plaintiff or its directors for contempt. The defendant was not short of options. The plaintiff has exhibited a map previously in these same proceedings which I perceive to be unopposed, and which gave the siting of the defendant’s homestead.
6. Considering the application and the supporting affidavit in their entirety, it can not be said that the applicant has established that the plaintiff has encroached on the portion that he occupies.
7. Consequently, there is no evidence upon which the court can cite the persons mentioned in the application dated 9/7/2024 and the same is hereby dismissed with costs. The suit shall be mentioned on 4/2/2026 for pretrial. The parties shall comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules before that date.
Dated, signed and delivered at Malindi on this 2nd day of December 2025.
'