The court had expressly prohibited further construction. The applicants then returned with evidence that building work continued despite knowledge of the order. The ensuing contempt ruling found disobedience, but stopped short of imposing the imprisonment they had requested.
Njiriri & 5 others v County Government of Nairobi & another [2023] KECA 1667 (KLR) is headed as a Court of Appeal ruling of 15 December 2023, Civil Application E262 of 2023.
Its operative direction was a priority hearing for the identified contemnors to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail. That is different from a sentence already being imposed.
The earlier order carefully defined the status quo
The retained [2023] KECA 419, identified as dated 14 April 2023, concerned preservation pending an intended appeal from an ELC ruling that had struck out the applicants' suit.
The underlying positions conflicted. The applicants asserted occupation and property interests; the respondents described land reserved for public use.
The Court of Appeal accepted an arguable appeal and a risk that changing the position would undermine it. It ordered no further construction or development, no eviction of the applicants, and no charging or transfer by the county.
Costs of that application were to abide the intended appeal. The court did not resolve the underlying ownership dispute through temporary preservation.
The contempt application concerned what happened afterwards
The applicants sought contempt findings, arrest or other sanctions and civil imprisonment for six months or a similar period.
Their affidavits described continued construction despite awareness of the April order. They also described continuation after service of the contempt application, with work completed by the date of a further affidavit.
The respondents neither opposed the application nor appeared at its hearing despite service through their advocates.
The court accepted the uncontroverted evidence and found that the order had been disobeyed. Paragraphs 3-7 explain that evidential basis. The finding was not merely an allegation repeated in a court heading.
The responsible officeholder had to be identified
One respondent was a named individual, while the county-side citation referred to the office of County Secretary.
The court recognised that potential penal consequences must attach to the actual person responsible, not automatically to whoever happens to occupy an office later.
Its operative finding identified the person or persons occupying that office between 14 April and 16 June 2023, alongside the private respondent. That interval must not be extended to 27 June merely because the evidence records construction completed by that later affidavit date.
This distinction matters when an order concerns a public body but enforcement seeks consequences against individuals. Institutional responsibility and personal responsibility are not interchangeable.
The requested prison term was not the order made
Paragraph 9 found disobedience and directed attendance to show cause why civil imprisonment should not follow.
The registry was to give a priority hearing date, and the applicants' advocate was to serve the hearing notice on the contemnors and the respondents' advocates.
The ruling did not impose the requested six-month term, a fine or an express costs order. It also did not establish that a later show-cause hearing occurred or what its outcome was.
Reporting imprisonment as already ordered would confuse the relief requested with the narrower operative direction.
Source differences require careful matching
The body varies the private respondent's surname, while the formal heading and final order use Mbatia. The earlier application appears as E442 and E422 of 2022; the principal header's recital also calls it E262 of 2023, the contempt application's own number. Plot notation differs across the rulings.
This account does not reconstruct parcel identifiers or infer an additional person. The April order's date, parties and terms support the relationship, but do not resolve the docket conflict.
Publication metadata says 14 July 2025; the judicial header says 15 December 2023. Neither is this article's publication date.
Questions when construction continues under a court order
What activities does the order prohibit? What evidence records knowledge and subsequent conduct? Who was responsible during the relevant period? Did the court find contempt, impose a sanction or direct a further hearing?
A Kenyan advocate should assess enforcement from the actual order and evidence. A preservation order is not self-enforcing, and its breach does not automatically decide who owns the land.
Review ArdhiScore's screening scope and limitations. Screening cannot stop works, enforce an order, secure a sanction, certify title or guarantee complete coverage. It does not replace official records or qualified Kenyan advice.
Explore ArdhiScore screening and its limits.
Independent local review, 11 September 2026: Ezra read the retained original responses in the postwriting cache index, separately from the writer's selected-cache record: principal header and paragraphs 1-9, and earlier paragraphs 1-15 including raw-only paragraph 6. Source hold remains: the principal signed closing and earlier formal header, decision-body date and closing are missing; identity/docket variations remain unresolved. No network request or fresh later-history search occurred. No later sentence, compliance or title outcome is established. Access/reuse, privacy/legal and publication approval remain separate.
Read the contempt ruling, paragraphs 3-9; and the preservation ruling, paragraphs 10-15.