'The applicants have come to this court seeking an order that this court makes a finding that the 1-6th Respondents, 7th -8th Respondents are in contempt of court on account of deliberate failure and/or refusal to comply with the orders made by the Honorable Court on 16th October 2024 and the title deeds issued to individual members pursuant to the judgment delivered on 16th October, 2024 be revoked and/or cancelled for failure to abide with the judgment and/or legal procedure, especially title deed known as Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/3156 measuring approximately 0.0464Ha issued to Ntenayio Ole Koroi.
The applicants pray that summons do issue to the Lands Registrar, Naivasha Lands Registry, Gildine Karani and the Chief Lands Registrar David Nyambaso Nyandoro, to personally appear in court and show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of court for a period of six months.
That the court directs that the Lands Registrar, Naivasha Lands Registry Gildine Karani and the Chief Lands Registrar David Nyambaso Nyandoro, be jailed for six (6) months and/or be punished in any other way the court deems just. This Honorable Court does review its ruling delivered on 9th May, 2025 and fix the Application dated 27th January, 2025 for hearing in terms of prayer number 4-6 of the Application. The costs of this application be borne by the Respondents.
The application is based on grounds that this honorable court issued a declaration that the Plaintiff is a beneficiary of land parcel number Maefa/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073 and directed that the Register in respect of land parcel number Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/8253 and 3073 be rectified and the issued title deeds be cancelled.
The court further ordered that the Title Deeds to land parcel number Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073 be issued to the 17 Defendants vide H. C. C.C 89 of 1996 to hold in trust of themselves and all the beneficiaries. The court ordered that costs of this suit and interest at court rates be awarded to the Plaintiffs against the 1st to 6th Defendants.
Following the said judgement, the 1st -6th Respondents have taken advantage of the lacuna where the court did not pronounce who are the beneficiaries of Maefa/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073, and have resulted in issuing individual title deeds to unknown persons.
The Applicant herein, who is the Chairman of the members, and a member of the 17 Defendants in H.C.C.C 89 of 1996, was never consulted neither has he signed any documentation authorizing the subdivision of titles. He prays that the 7th -8th Respondents be held accountable and explain to this Honorable Court why they have not complied with the judgement of the court despite the several visits to the lands registry by the Applicants.
According to the applicant, the Respondents actions are tantamount to disobedience of the orders of the Honorable Court for which this Court has jurisdiction to punish as appropriate and that it is not for the Respondents to choose whether or not to comply with the orders of the Court but the same must be complied with whether or not the Respondents is happy with them. Unless the orders herein are granted, the orders of the court of 16/10/2024 will have been issued in vain much to the Applicants detriment. The application has been brought without delay. It is in the interest of justice that the orders are granted.
The ground of the applications are reiterated in the supporting affidavit of Lekishon Ole Linti.
Gildine Karani responded that he is not in contempt of the orders of the court issued on 16th October, 2024 as he did not issue or authorize any issuance of titles on the disputed parcel of land. Further that she is aware that the Chief Land Register equally did not sign or authorize any issuance of tiles for land parcel number Maela/Ndabibi Block 2253 and 3073.
He became aware that there were individual titles issued by his colleague who has since left Naivasha land registry. That he was approached by the Applicants demanding to know how titles were issued and he immediately closed the mother title on 12/11/2024.
He later followed up on the issue and realized that there were two warring groups on the disputed portion with each group claiming to have their own beneficiary list hence making it impossible to issue individual titles. He is unable to comply with the judgement of the court delivered on 16th October, 2024 since a title cannot fit the names of seventeen (17) people. Further, in the said judgement, the names of the seventeen (17) defendants were not disclosed leaving a very big lacuna on who is to hold the land in trust.
He prays that the registrar who issued the said titles be summoned to appear before this Honorable court and explain how exactly he registered and/or whet documentation was used to register the titles.
After having a discussion with the Chief Land registrar, it was agreeable that all the titles issued on the land parcel number Maella/ Ndabibi Block 2253 and 3073 be cancelled by this Honorable Court. Any other title issued for lack of procedure also be cancelled. He stopped the issuance of the said titles, there have been no other titles and/or green cards being issued until the issues of beneficiaries and who is to hold in trust is determined by this Honorable Court.
It is in the interest of justice that the Honorable Court does allow the cancellation of titles to enable the rightful beneficiaries be granted the title deeds to their parcel of land and avoid this long tussle that has existed between the parties in this matter.
Ipitiet Ole Kilongu states that it was a term of the said judgment that land parcel Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073 be rectified and the issued title deeds be cancelled. Further that title deeds to the said parcels issued to the 1 7 Defendants vide HCCC89 of 1996 to hold in trust of themselves all the beneficiaries. Upon receipt of the decree, the land registrar summoned the Applicants to surrender the title deeds in their possession for cancellation, but they declined to surrender the said titles for cancellation.
He believes that it is the applicants who have been in contempts of the orders of court as they refused to surrender the titles in their possession for cancellation of the said titles and issuance of new titles as directed by the court. When the applicants failed to surrender the titles in their possession and upon lapse of the time they were issued to surrender the titles the Land Registrar proceeded to act on the orders of the court and cancelled the titles in their possession and issued a new title in compliance of the s decree-
That after the issuance of the new title in compliance this court''s decree, the said titles were surrendered to the office of Land Registrar Naivasha so that the process issuing individual titles could start.
It is within my knowledge that since all that land parcel'' known as Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 had been subdivided in the year 2018 and the beneficiaries have been in occupation of their respective portions, the beneficiaries who had the requite money have been making payments for the processing of their respective titles.
On 4th November 2024 the beneficiaries whose titles were held in trust by the 17 Defendants vide HCCC No 89 of 1996 held a meeting where they expressed their views and agreed that they did not want the initial situation to happen and they unanimously agreed that each beneficiary be issued with an individual title.
The members agreed that since mutation had been done and they were in occupation of their own parcels, the title were to be processed as per each member’s occupation upon payment of the requisite fees for processing titles. The said resolution by the members was not in any manner in contempt of the court’s judgment as the court''s decree had been complied to and the members resolved to have their own individual titles.
According to the deponent, the applicant herein is misleading the court; and he has filed this application to enhance his vengeance attempts towards the beneficiaries who had resolved that since he had caused them injustice for a long time where he been an impediment in processing in individual titles.
The member’s resolution to process individual titles was done for their best interest so as to resolve the issue of beneficiaries not being issued with title deeds which issue has been subsisting for long.
I have considered this application and do find that there is no evidence that the 1st 6th respondents are in contempt of court because they are not the ones who issued the title deeds as the same were issued by the District Land Registrar Naivasha. The land registrar was the person who issued titles to the beneficiaries without considering the court order of 16th October 2024 and therefore was in contempt of the said court order that was issued in the presence of the state counsel and therefore there was no need of personal service of the court order. It has been held by the courts that knowledge of the court order is enough to require one to obey the same. Lenaola J as he then was, in the case of Basil Criticos Vs Attorney General and 8 Others [2012] eKLR pronounced himself as follows:-
“...the law has changed and as it stands today knowledge supersedes personal service.....where a party clearly acts and shows that he had knowledge of a Court Order; the strict requirement that personal service must be proved is rendered unnecessary”
The import of the court of Appeals decision in Justus Kariuki Mate & Another vs Hon. Martin Nyaga Wambora & Another, Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2014 (Wambora case) was that personal service of the order alleged to have been disobeyed is not mandatory.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed defines notice as follows:-
“A person has notice of a fact or condition if that person-
Has actual knowledge of it;
Has received information about it; Has reason to know about it;
Knows about a related fact;
Is considered as having been able to ascertain it by checking an official filing or recording.”
In this case the land registrar who registered the suit property in the names of the beneficiaries was aware that the court order required the property to be registered in the names of trustees but went ahead to register the property in the names of the beneficiaries. However this court finds that the Land Registrar and the Chief Land Registrar cited for contempt are not named. Contempt of court are quasi criminal proceedings that should be brought against the person in office but not the office. From the foregoing, the application for contempt has no merit.
The third prayer for the cancellation of the titles issued to the individual members pursuant to the judgment delivered on 16th October 2024 has merit because the title deeds were issued in contempt of the court order herein and therefore I do order that the title deeds issued to individual members pursuant to the judgment delivered on 16th October, 2024 be, and are hereby, revoked and/or cancelled for failure to abide with the judgment and/or legal procedure, especially title deed known as Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/3156 measuring approximately 0.0464Ha issued to Ntenayio Ole Koroi.
'
The applicants pray that summons do issue to the Lands Registrar, Naivasha Lands Registry, Gildine Karani and the Chief Lands Registrar David Nyambaso Nyandoro, to personally appear in court and show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of court for a period of six months.
That the court directs that the Lands Registrar, Naivasha Lands Registry Gildine Karani and the Chief Lands Registrar David Nyambaso Nyandoro, be jailed for six (6) months and/or be punished in any other way the court deems just. This Honorable Court does review its ruling delivered on 9th May, 2025 and fix the Application dated 27th January, 2025 for hearing in terms of prayer number 4-6 of the Application. The costs of this application be borne by the Respondents.
The application is based on grounds that this honorable court issued a declaration that the Plaintiff is a beneficiary of land parcel number Maefa/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073 and directed that the Register in respect of land parcel number Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/8253 and 3073 be rectified and the issued title deeds be cancelled.
The court further ordered that the Title Deeds to land parcel number Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073 be issued to the 17 Defendants vide H. C. C.C 89 of 1996 to hold in trust of themselves and all the beneficiaries. The court ordered that costs of this suit and interest at court rates be awarded to the Plaintiffs against the 1st to 6th Defendants.
Following the said judgement, the 1st -6th Respondents have taken advantage of the lacuna where the court did not pronounce who are the beneficiaries of Maefa/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073, and have resulted in issuing individual title deeds to unknown persons.
The Applicant herein, who is the Chairman of the members, and a member of the 17 Defendants in H.C.C.C 89 of 1996, was never consulted neither has he signed any documentation authorizing the subdivision of titles. He prays that the 7th -8th Respondents be held accountable and explain to this Honorable Court why they have not complied with the judgement of the court despite the several visits to the lands registry by the Applicants.
According to the applicant, the Respondents actions are tantamount to disobedience of the orders of the Honorable Court for which this Court has jurisdiction to punish as appropriate and that it is not for the Respondents to choose whether or not to comply with the orders of the Court but the same must be complied with whether or not the Respondents is happy with them. Unless the orders herein are granted, the orders of the court of 16/10/2024 will have been issued in vain much to the Applicants detriment. The application has been brought without delay. It is in the interest of justice that the orders are granted.
The ground of the applications are reiterated in the supporting affidavit of Lekishon Ole Linti.
Gildine Karani responded that he is not in contempt of the orders of the court issued on 16th October, 2024 as he did not issue or authorize any issuance of titles on the disputed parcel of land. Further that she is aware that the Chief Land Register equally did not sign or authorize any issuance of tiles for land parcel number Maela/Ndabibi Block 2253 and 3073.
He became aware that there were individual titles issued by his colleague who has since left Naivasha land registry. That he was approached by the Applicants demanding to know how titles were issued and he immediately closed the mother title on 12/11/2024.
He later followed up on the issue and realized that there were two warring groups on the disputed portion with each group claiming to have their own beneficiary list hence making it impossible to issue individual titles. He is unable to comply with the judgement of the court delivered on 16th October, 2024 since a title cannot fit the names of seventeen (17) people. Further, in the said judgement, the names of the seventeen (17) defendants were not disclosed leaving a very big lacuna on who is to hold the land in trust.
He prays that the registrar who issued the said titles be summoned to appear before this Honorable court and explain how exactly he registered and/or whet documentation was used to register the titles.
After having a discussion with the Chief Land registrar, it was agreeable that all the titles issued on the land parcel number Maella/ Ndabibi Block 2253 and 3073 be cancelled by this Honorable Court. Any other title issued for lack of procedure also be cancelled. He stopped the issuance of the said titles, there have been no other titles and/or green cards being issued until the issues of beneficiaries and who is to hold in trust is determined by this Honorable Court.
It is in the interest of justice that the Honorable Court does allow the cancellation of titles to enable the rightful beneficiaries be granted the title deeds to their parcel of land and avoid this long tussle that has existed between the parties in this matter.
Ipitiet Ole Kilongu states that it was a term of the said judgment that land parcel Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 and 3073 be rectified and the issued title deeds be cancelled. Further that title deeds to the said parcels issued to the 1 7 Defendants vide HCCC89 of 1996 to hold in trust of themselves all the beneficiaries. Upon receipt of the decree, the land registrar summoned the Applicants to surrender the title deeds in their possession for cancellation, but they declined to surrender the said titles for cancellation.
He believes that it is the applicants who have been in contempts of the orders of court as they refused to surrender the titles in their possession for cancellation of the said titles and issuance of new titles as directed by the court. When the applicants failed to surrender the titles in their possession and upon lapse of the time they were issued to surrender the titles the Land Registrar proceeded to act on the orders of the court and cancelled the titles in their possession and issued a new title in compliance of the s decree-
That after the issuance of the new title in compliance this court''s decree, the said titles were surrendered to the office of Land Registrar Naivasha so that the process issuing individual titles could start.
It is within my knowledge that since all that land parcel'' known as Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/2253 had been subdivided in the year 2018 and the beneficiaries have been in occupation of their respective portions, the beneficiaries who had the requite money have been making payments for the processing of their respective titles.
On 4th November 2024 the beneficiaries whose titles were held in trust by the 17 Defendants vide HCCC No 89 of 1996 held a meeting where they expressed their views and agreed that they did not want the initial situation to happen and they unanimously agreed that each beneficiary be issued with an individual title.
The members agreed that since mutation had been done and they were in occupation of their own parcels, the title were to be processed as per each member’s occupation upon payment of the requisite fees for processing titles. The said resolution by the members was not in any manner in contempt of the court’s judgment as the court''s decree had been complied to and the members resolved to have their own individual titles.
According to the deponent, the applicant herein is misleading the court; and he has filed this application to enhance his vengeance attempts towards the beneficiaries who had resolved that since he had caused them injustice for a long time where he been an impediment in processing in individual titles.
The member’s resolution to process individual titles was done for their best interest so as to resolve the issue of beneficiaries not being issued with title deeds which issue has been subsisting for long.
I have considered this application and do find that there is no evidence that the 1st 6th respondents are in contempt of court because they are not the ones who issued the title deeds as the same were issued by the District Land Registrar Naivasha. The land registrar was the person who issued titles to the beneficiaries without considering the court order of 16th October 2024 and therefore was in contempt of the said court order that was issued in the presence of the state counsel and therefore there was no need of personal service of the court order. It has been held by the courts that knowledge of the court order is enough to require one to obey the same. Lenaola J as he then was, in the case of Basil Criticos Vs Attorney General and 8 Others [2012] eKLR pronounced himself as follows:-
“...the law has changed and as it stands today knowledge supersedes personal service.....where a party clearly acts and shows that he had knowledge of a Court Order; the strict requirement that personal service must be proved is rendered unnecessary”
The import of the court of Appeals decision in Justus Kariuki Mate & Another vs Hon. Martin Nyaga Wambora & Another, Civil Appeal No. 24 of 2014 (Wambora case) was that personal service of the order alleged to have been disobeyed is not mandatory.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Ed defines notice as follows:-
“A person has notice of a fact or condition if that person-
Has actual knowledge of it;
Has received information about it; Has reason to know about it;
Knows about a related fact;
Is considered as having been able to ascertain it by checking an official filing or recording.”
In this case the land registrar who registered the suit property in the names of the beneficiaries was aware that the court order required the property to be registered in the names of trustees but went ahead to register the property in the names of the beneficiaries. However this court finds that the Land Registrar and the Chief Land Registrar cited for contempt are not named. Contempt of court are quasi criminal proceedings that should be brought against the person in office but not the office. From the foregoing, the application for contempt has no merit.
The third prayer for the cancellation of the titles issued to the individual members pursuant to the judgment delivered on 16th October 2024 has merit because the title deeds were issued in contempt of the court order herein and therefore I do order that the title deeds issued to individual members pursuant to the judgment delivered on 16th October, 2024 be, and are hereby, revoked and/or cancelled for failure to abide with the judgment and/or legal procedure, especially title deed known as Maela/Ndabibi Block 5/3156 measuring approximately 0.0464Ha issued to Ntenayio Ole Koroi.
'