1. Before me for determination is an application dated 15th July 2025 praying for orders that;
1.spent
2. spent
3.spent
4. This Honourable court finds the 1" Objector/Respondent herein in contempt of court for disobeying the court Orders made on the 16th day of May, 2024 and thereafter.
5. The Honourable court do order that the 1 Objector/Respondent herein be committed to civil jail for a period to be determined by this Honourable Court until the contempt is purged.
6. The court makes any such order for purposes of enforcing the status quo orders issued by this court on 16th May, 2024.
7. The costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application was brought on the grounds that;
a) The deceased died on 18th May, 1998. A grant of letters of administration was taken out by HELLEN KIMONGE, the spouse to the deceased and subsequently confirmed on 30th November, 1999.
b) Land parcel LR MAJOGE/BOSOTI/805, measuring approximately 16 acres and constituting the sole property forming part of the estate of the deceased, was subdivided as per the wishes and consent of the beneficiaries.
c) Prior to her demise, the administrator subdivided and transferred the said parcel of land into four portions. Some daughters voluntarily waived their right to inheritance. The subdivisions were as follows;
i) Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3049, measuring 1.29 Hectares, was allocated to Henry Kissinger as instructed by the intended beneficiary, his mother Rachel Kimonge.
ii) Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3050, measuring 1.29 Hectares, was allocated to Lucy Kimonge.
Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3051, measuring 1.91 Hectares was allocated to Hellen Kimonge, to hold in trust and subequently transfer to James Obara Kimonge when he is ready.
Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3052, measuring 1.91 Hectares, was allocated to Joel Mauri Kimonge, who has since sold portions of the land iv) to third parties.
3. On 16th May 2024, the Honourable Court ordered that the status quo before the demise of the deceased administrator be maintained. Parties were reminded to uphold peace, and the matter was referred to court-annexed mediation where a mediation agreement was adopted by this court on 8th July, 2024. Further that though the orders were issued in the presence of their advocate, the 1" Objector/Respondent has failed and/or refused to comply with the directive to maintain the status quo. The 1ª Objector/Respondent is in contempt of court, as he continues to cultivate on Lucy Kimonge's parcel of land and has erected a gate barring her access, leaving only a narrow pathway that can be accessed on foot or by motorcycle. Also that the orders are still in place
4. The application was supported by an affidavit by Hilda kimonge the applicant herein who said that the 1st objector is in contempt of the status quo orders dated 16th May, 2024, which he is aware of as the same were issued in the presence of their advocate, , as he continues to cultivate Maize, Sugarcane and Bananas on Lucy Kimonge’s parcel of land Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3050 and has erected a gate barring her access, leaving only a narrow pathway that can be accessed on foot or by motorcycle.
5. The 1st Respondent Joel in his reply , stated that the beneficiaries have not entered into a consent on distribution of the estate of the deceased. Further that on 30th November 1999 the Honourable court confirmed the grant of letters and distributed the deceased property being land parcel No. Majoge/Bosoti/805 as follows:
i. Leonard Ngara Kimonge. 6 acres
ii. Rachel Kwamboka Kimonge.. ...4 acres
iii. Truphena Moran, Mary Mogutu,
Roda Kimonge, Hilda Kimonge, Lucy Kimonge, and Isabella Kimonge--to get 1 acre each Also that the objectors who are the 2 sons of deceased were left out of the distribution of the estate and as a result they filed an objection, wherein they sought revocation of grant and that James Obara Kimonge who was disinherited be provided for in the fresh mode of distribution which was to be filed . Also that contrary to the mode of distribution approved by the Honourable Court the deceased petitioner had earlier before the objection had subdivided the land parcel No. Majoge/Bosoti/805 into 4 portions as follows:-
a) Majoge/Bosoti/3049 transferred to Henry Kissinger who is not a beneficiary of the deceased
b) Majoge/Bosoti/3050 transferred and registered in the name of Lucy Kimonge
c) Majoge/Bosoti/3051 registered in the name of Hellen Kimonge
d) Majoge/Bosoti/3052 registered in Joel Mauti Kimonge .
He said that the James Obara Kimonge was disinherited in that distribution though his portion on the ground was as allocated allocated to him by their deceased father .
6. He accused the petitioner of harassing and embarrassing him and James by threatening to evict them and also by pressing false charges against them in Ogembo law courts . He termed all titles arising from the said subdivisions as of non-existent and/or deemed cancelled pursuant to the Ruling delivered by Lady Justice Ougo. He said that that he understood the status quo to mean the position of the parties on the ground while taking into account the ruling of this court given on 23rd March 2023 herein.
7. The applicant in her supplementary affidavit, denied the allegations by 1st objector in his reply and said that the 1st Objector herein decided to blatantly mislead this Honourable Court by making false accusations against their late parents .
8. The application proceeded by way of written submissions, the applicants in their submissions,
Applicant’s submissions
9. The applicant submitted that the respondent /1st objector is in contempt of court orders date on 16th Mav 2024. Also that Black’s law Dictionary (9 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.” She also told the court that the test for establishing whether a party is in contempt was laid down in the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR, where the court held that:-
“40. It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove;
i. The terms of the order,
ii. Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent,
iii. Failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order.
She also cited the learned authors of the book Contempt in Modern New Zealand who succinctly stated:-
“There are essentially four elements that must be proved to make the case for civil contempt. The applicant must prove to the required standard (in civil contempt cases which is higher than civil cases) that:-
(a) The terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the defendant;
(b) The defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order;
(c) The defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and
(d) The defendant’s conduct was deliberate.”
10. She said court order issued is clear and unambiguous and the Respondents have not claimed otherwise, or claimed to not have understood the contents therein. The order clearly indicates that it was made in the presence of the advocates for the parties. The Respondents therefore were fully aware of the orders subject matter of this suit. Further that the 1” respondent has not claimed to not be aware of the orders. The Applicant asserts that the 1st respondent has breached the said order by continuing to cultivate maize, sugarcane and bananas on Lucy Kimonge’s parcel of land Title No. Majoge/Bosoti/3050. Furthermore, the Respondent has erected a gate that bars Lucy’s access, leaving only a narrow pathway that can be accessed on foot or by motorcycle. The Applicant has also attached photographic evidence and a copy of the extract from the occurrence book which is she said was not controverted .She urged the court to remind parties of the obligation to obey and abide by court orders unless and until they are discharged.
Counsel cited the case of Econet Wireless Kenya Limited vs Minister for Information and Communication of Kenya Authority (2005) eKLR, the court 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 not . He also relied to the case of Woburn Estate Limited vs Margaret Bashforth [2016] eKLR the Court of Appeal in page 9 paragraph 3 cited the decision in Refrigeration and Kitchen Utensils Ltd vs Gulabchand Popatlal Shah & Another, Nairobi Civil Application No.39 of 1990, where it was observed that:-
“A party who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it... It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or valid-whether it was regular or irregular. That they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question...he should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as it exists it must not be disobeyed.
11. It was submitted that the response of the respondent are on issues of the titles which have already been determined by the court vide the ruling dated 23.3.23 or during mediation. Further that the respondent has deliberately disobeyed the status quo orders yet he is duly represented by counsel .It was also submitted that the applicant has proved that the respondent is in contempt of court . Whether such contempt has been proved to the required standard.regarding the standard of proof, in the case of Gatharia K. Mutikika vs Baharini Farm Ltd (1985) KLR 227, the court explained the standard of proof for civil contempt, holding that:-
In Re Breamblevale Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1062, where 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”. The court of appeal held that “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. 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. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt ought to be left where it belongs, to wit, in criminal cases. It is not safe to extend it to offence which can be said to be quasi-criminal in nature Winn LJ on page 1064 was in our view right in saying that the guilt has to be proved ‘with such strictness of proof... as is consistent with the gravity of the charge”.
12. Applying the test that the standard of proof should be consistent with the gravity of the alleged contempt. The facts of this case and the evidence adduced have demonstrated that the Applicant has discharged its evidentiary burden with regard to the 1” Respondent’s contempt. The Applicant has established all the limbs of the test laid out in the Samuel M.N. Mweru Case (supra) to the required standard. Applicant urged this court to find that the I” Respondent is guilty of contempt of the orders issued by the Honourable Court and allow the application
Analysis
13. I have carefully considered the application the reply and the submissions. 27. Offence of contempt of court. Black’s law Dictionary (9 Edition) defines contempt of court as:-
“conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court. Because such conduct interferes
Section 27 (b) of the Contempt of Court Act provides that ; -A person who willfully and without lawful excuse disobeys an order or directions of a superior or subordinate court in the course of the hearing of a proceeding; The standard of proof for contempt of court in Kenya was set in the case of in the case of Gatharia K. Mutikika vs Baharini Farm Ltd (1985) KLR where the court held that it is above balance of probability and slightly below reasonable doubt . In the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR, the court held that:-
“40. It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove;
i. The terms of the order,
ii. Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent,
iii. Failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order.
The applicant is a civil application of contempt of court must establish the following : (a) the terms of the order must clear and unambiguous .
(b) the defendant had knowledge of the order;
(c) the defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and
(d) the defendant's conduct was deliberate.
with the Administration of justice, it is punishable usually by fine or imprisonment.”
14. On whether the orders alleged to have been breached were unambiguous . On 16th May, 2024, the Court made the following orders:
‘’That status quo before the demise of the deceased be maintained, parties. Are reminded to keep peace. ‘’
These orders was in an ordinary language and was clear .
15. On whether the 1st objector respondent had knowledge of the same ,
The said orders were issued in the presence of Mr Gichana advocate who is on record for the respondent . The 1st respondent was thus duly represented in the proceedings of 16.5.24 and thus had knowledge of the said orders .
16. On whether the 1st objector was in breach of the said order , the applicant alleged that ‘’ The 1” Objector/Respondent is in contempt of court, as he continues to cultivate Maize, Sugarcane and Bananas on Lucy Kimonge’s parcel of land Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3050 and has erected a gate barring her access, leaving only a narrow pathway that can be accessed on foot or by motorcycle. ‘’
The applicant said that before her demise their mother had redistributed the land to each of them and what was pending was confirmation of grant . The 1st objector denied being in contempt. He said that the status quo is the position on the ground in view of the orders dated 23.3.23 . The exact dates when the contempt started was not stated . The standard of proof in contempt matters is above in between of convenience and beyond reasonable doubt. It is clear from the foregoing and the ruling dated 23.3.23 and which ordered redistribution that the position changed so that land no 3050 which the applicant is alleged to have encroached on does not exist . The ruling dated 23.9.25 will also change the position on the ground once the boundaries of the beneficiaries will be marked . This is a family matter and the court is inclined to reunite the parties .
17. I find the application dated 15.7.25 has not met the threshold for contempt of court . I proceed to dismiss it . Each party to bear his own costs .
18. I direct that the land registrar and the county surveyor to visit land parcel no.Majoge /Bosoti /805 and mark the boundaries as per grant herein dated 31.7.2024 and file a report within 60 days from today .
19. Administration be completed within 120 days from today. Mention on 7.5.26 .
No further application should be filed herein without leave of the court .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
16.1.26
Delivered Virtually Via Teams platform in the presence of Miss Nyaenya for the respondent and Miss Oloo for the applicant . CA – Mr Kipchirchir
1.spent
2. spent
3.spent
4. This Honourable court finds the 1" Objector/Respondent herein in contempt of court for disobeying the court Orders made on the 16th day of May, 2024 and thereafter.
5. The Honourable court do order that the 1 Objector/Respondent herein be committed to civil jail for a period to be determined by this Honourable Court until the contempt is purged.
6. The court makes any such order for purposes of enforcing the status quo orders issued by this court on 16th May, 2024.
7. The costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application was brought on the grounds that;
a) The deceased died on 18th May, 1998. A grant of letters of administration was taken out by HELLEN KIMONGE, the spouse to the deceased and subsequently confirmed on 30th November, 1999.
b) Land parcel LR MAJOGE/BOSOTI/805, measuring approximately 16 acres and constituting the sole property forming part of the estate of the deceased, was subdivided as per the wishes and consent of the beneficiaries.
c) Prior to her demise, the administrator subdivided and transferred the said parcel of land into four portions. Some daughters voluntarily waived their right to inheritance. The subdivisions were as follows;
i) Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3049, measuring 1.29 Hectares, was allocated to Henry Kissinger as instructed by the intended beneficiary, his mother Rachel Kimonge.
ii) Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3050, measuring 1.29 Hectares, was allocated to Lucy Kimonge.
Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3051, measuring 1.91 Hectares was allocated to Hellen Kimonge, to hold in trust and subequently transfer to James Obara Kimonge when he is ready.
Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3052, measuring 1.91 Hectares, was allocated to Joel Mauri Kimonge, who has since sold portions of the land iv) to third parties.
3. On 16th May 2024, the Honourable Court ordered that the status quo before the demise of the deceased administrator be maintained. Parties were reminded to uphold peace, and the matter was referred to court-annexed mediation where a mediation agreement was adopted by this court on 8th July, 2024. Further that though the orders were issued in the presence of their advocate, the 1" Objector/Respondent has failed and/or refused to comply with the directive to maintain the status quo. The 1ª Objector/Respondent is in contempt of court, as he continues to cultivate on Lucy Kimonge's parcel of land and has erected a gate barring her access, leaving only a narrow pathway that can be accessed on foot or by motorcycle. Also that the orders are still in place
4. The application was supported by an affidavit by Hilda kimonge the applicant herein who said that the 1st objector is in contempt of the status quo orders dated 16th May, 2024, which he is aware of as the same were issued in the presence of their advocate, , as he continues to cultivate Maize, Sugarcane and Bananas on Lucy Kimonge’s parcel of land Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3050 and has erected a gate barring her access, leaving only a narrow pathway that can be accessed on foot or by motorcycle.
5. The 1st Respondent Joel in his reply , stated that the beneficiaries have not entered into a consent on distribution of the estate of the deceased. Further that on 30th November 1999 the Honourable court confirmed the grant of letters and distributed the deceased property being land parcel No. Majoge/Bosoti/805 as follows:
i. Leonard Ngara Kimonge. 6 acres
ii. Rachel Kwamboka Kimonge.. ...4 acres
iii. Truphena Moran, Mary Mogutu,
Roda Kimonge, Hilda Kimonge, Lucy Kimonge, and Isabella Kimonge--to get 1 acre each Also that the objectors who are the 2 sons of deceased were left out of the distribution of the estate and as a result they filed an objection, wherein they sought revocation of grant and that James Obara Kimonge who was disinherited be provided for in the fresh mode of distribution which was to be filed . Also that contrary to the mode of distribution approved by the Honourable Court the deceased petitioner had earlier before the objection had subdivided the land parcel No. Majoge/Bosoti/805 into 4 portions as follows:-
a) Majoge/Bosoti/3049 transferred to Henry Kissinger who is not a beneficiary of the deceased
b) Majoge/Bosoti/3050 transferred and registered in the name of Lucy Kimonge
c) Majoge/Bosoti/3051 registered in the name of Hellen Kimonge
d) Majoge/Bosoti/3052 registered in Joel Mauti Kimonge .
He said that the James Obara Kimonge was disinherited in that distribution though his portion on the ground was as allocated allocated to him by their deceased father .
6. He accused the petitioner of harassing and embarrassing him and James by threatening to evict them and also by pressing false charges against them in Ogembo law courts . He termed all titles arising from the said subdivisions as of non-existent and/or deemed cancelled pursuant to the Ruling delivered by Lady Justice Ougo. He said that that he understood the status quo to mean the position of the parties on the ground while taking into account the ruling of this court given on 23rd March 2023 herein.
7. The applicant in her supplementary affidavit, denied the allegations by 1st objector in his reply and said that the 1st Objector herein decided to blatantly mislead this Honourable Court by making false accusations against their late parents .
8. The application proceeded by way of written submissions, the applicants in their submissions,
Applicant’s submissions
9. The applicant submitted that the respondent /1st objector is in contempt of court orders date on 16th Mav 2024. Also that Black’s law Dictionary (9 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.” She also told the court that the test for establishing whether a party is in contempt was laid down in the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR, where the court held that:-
“40. It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove;
i. The terms of the order,
ii. Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent,
iii. Failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order.
She also cited the learned authors of the book Contempt in Modern New Zealand who succinctly stated:-
“There are essentially four elements that must be proved to make the case for civil contempt. The applicant must prove to the required standard (in civil contempt cases which is higher than civil cases) that:-
(a) The terms of the order (or injunction or undertaking) were clear and unambiguous and were binding on the defendant;
(b) The defendant had knowledge of or proper notice of the terms of the order;
(c) The defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and
(d) The defendant’s conduct was deliberate.”
10. She said court order issued is clear and unambiguous and the Respondents have not claimed otherwise, or claimed to not have understood the contents therein. The order clearly indicates that it was made in the presence of the advocates for the parties. The Respondents therefore were fully aware of the orders subject matter of this suit. Further that the 1” respondent has not claimed to not be aware of the orders. The Applicant asserts that the 1st respondent has breached the said order by continuing to cultivate maize, sugarcane and bananas on Lucy Kimonge’s parcel of land Title No. Majoge/Bosoti/3050. Furthermore, the Respondent has erected a gate that bars Lucy’s access, leaving only a narrow pathway that can be accessed on foot or by motorcycle. The Applicant has also attached photographic evidence and a copy of the extract from the occurrence book which is she said was not controverted .She urged the court to remind parties of the obligation to obey and abide by court orders unless and until they are discharged.
Counsel cited the case of Econet Wireless Kenya Limited vs Minister for Information and Communication of Kenya Authority (2005) eKLR, the court 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 not . He also relied to the case of Woburn Estate Limited vs Margaret Bashforth [2016] eKLR the Court of Appeal in page 9 paragraph 3 cited the decision in Refrigeration and Kitchen Utensils Ltd vs Gulabchand Popatlal Shah & Another, Nairobi Civil Application No.39 of 1990, where it was observed that:-
“A party who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it... It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or valid-whether it was regular or irregular. That they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question...he should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as it exists it must not be disobeyed.
11. It was submitted that the response of the respondent are on issues of the titles which have already been determined by the court vide the ruling dated 23.3.23 or during mediation. Further that the respondent has deliberately disobeyed the status quo orders yet he is duly represented by counsel .It was also submitted that the applicant has proved that the respondent is in contempt of court . Whether such contempt has been proved to the required standard.regarding the standard of proof, in the case of Gatharia K. Mutikika vs Baharini Farm Ltd (1985) KLR 227, the court explained the standard of proof for civil contempt, holding that:-
In Re Breamblevale Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1062, where 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”. The court of appeal held that “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. 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. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt ought to be left where it belongs, to wit, in criminal cases. It is not safe to extend it to offence which can be said to be quasi-criminal in nature Winn LJ on page 1064 was in our view right in saying that the guilt has to be proved ‘with such strictness of proof... as is consistent with the gravity of the charge”.
12. Applying the test that the standard of proof should be consistent with the gravity of the alleged contempt. The facts of this case and the evidence adduced have demonstrated that the Applicant has discharged its evidentiary burden with regard to the 1” Respondent’s contempt. The Applicant has established all the limbs of the test laid out in the Samuel M.N. Mweru Case (supra) to the required standard. Applicant urged this court to find that the I” Respondent is guilty of contempt of the orders issued by the Honourable Court and allow the application
Analysis
13. I have carefully considered the application the reply and the submissions. 27. Offence of contempt of court. Black’s law Dictionary (9 Edition) defines contempt of court as:-
“conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court. Because such conduct interferes
Section 27 (b) of the Contempt of Court Act provides that ; -A person who willfully and without lawful excuse disobeys an order or directions of a superior or subordinate court in the course of the hearing of a proceeding; The standard of proof for contempt of court in Kenya was set in the case of in the case of Gatharia K. Mutikika vs Baharini Farm Ltd (1985) KLR where the court held that it is above balance of probability and slightly below reasonable doubt . In the case of Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v National Land Commission & 2 others [2020] eKLR, the court held that:-
“40. It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove;
i. The terms of the order,
ii. Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent,
iii. Failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order.
The applicant is a civil application of contempt of court must establish the following : (a) the terms of the order must clear and unambiguous .
(b) the defendant had knowledge of the order;
(c) the defendant has acted in breach of the terms of the order; and
(d) the defendant's conduct was deliberate.
with the Administration of justice, it is punishable usually by fine or imprisonment.”
14. On whether the orders alleged to have been breached were unambiguous . On 16th May, 2024, the Court made the following orders:
‘’That status quo before the demise of the deceased be maintained, parties. Are reminded to keep peace. ‘’
These orders was in an ordinary language and was clear .
15. On whether the 1st objector respondent had knowledge of the same ,
The said orders were issued in the presence of Mr Gichana advocate who is on record for the respondent . The 1st respondent was thus duly represented in the proceedings of 16.5.24 and thus had knowledge of the said orders .
16. On whether the 1st objector was in breach of the said order , the applicant alleged that ‘’ The 1” Objector/Respondent is in contempt of court, as he continues to cultivate Maize, Sugarcane and Bananas on Lucy Kimonge’s parcel of land Title No. MAJOGE/BOSOTI/3050 and has erected a gate barring her access, leaving only a narrow pathway that can be accessed on foot or by motorcycle. ‘’
The applicant said that before her demise their mother had redistributed the land to each of them and what was pending was confirmation of grant . The 1st objector denied being in contempt. He said that the status quo is the position on the ground in view of the orders dated 23.3.23 . The exact dates when the contempt started was not stated . The standard of proof in contempt matters is above in between of convenience and beyond reasonable doubt. It is clear from the foregoing and the ruling dated 23.3.23 and which ordered redistribution that the position changed so that land no 3050 which the applicant is alleged to have encroached on does not exist . The ruling dated 23.9.25 will also change the position on the ground once the boundaries of the beneficiaries will be marked . This is a family matter and the court is inclined to reunite the parties .
17. I find the application dated 15.7.25 has not met the threshold for contempt of court . I proceed to dismiss it . Each party to bear his own costs .
18. I direct that the land registrar and the county surveyor to visit land parcel no.Majoge /Bosoti /805 and mark the boundaries as per grant herein dated 31.7.2024 and file a report within 60 days from today .
19. Administration be completed within 120 days from today. Mention on 7.5.26 .
No further application should be filed herein without leave of the court .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
16.1.26
Delivered Virtually Via Teams platform in the presence of Miss Nyaenya for the respondent and Miss Oloo for the applicant . CA – Mr Kipchirchir