The High Court has found businessman Abdullahi Mohamed Mohamud guilty of contempt of court for allegedly interfering with the operations of Roshan Energies Limited despite existing orders barring him from accessing or disrupting activities at disputed premises.
In a ruling, Justice Peter Mulwa found that Mohamud had disobeyed court orders issued on August 28, 2025, which were intended to protect the company’s operations at the property where it was developing a petrol station and convenience store.
“In light of the foregoing analysis, the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2025 is merited and is hereby allowed,” Justice Mulwa ruled.
The court formally cited Mohamud for contempt after finding that the orders were clear and that he had been served with them.
The dispute involves Roshan Energies and plaintiffs Abdiaziz Ali Hassan and Abdifatah Mohamed, represented by lawyer Cecil Miller, who accused Mohamud of continuing to assert control over the property and interfering with the company’s business activities.
According to the applicants, the alleged violations included destruction of company property and confrontations involving security personnel, some of whom reportedly sustained injuries and required medical attention.
The court was also told that Mohamud had been charged at the Makadara Law Courts with conspiracy to commit a felony in connection with the alleged destruction of the company’s property.
However, Mohamud denied the contempt allegations, maintaining that he had complied with the court’s directives. He argued that his presence at the premises was intended to report alleged vandalism to the police and further claimed an ownership interest in the disputed property.
In its determination, the court stressed that anyone dissatisfied with a court order must seek its review or appeal against it rather than take matters into their own hands.
Justice Mulwa found that the evidence presented demonstrated continued interference with the premises and the company’s operations, amounting to deliberate disobedience of lawful court orders.
The applicants had sought Mohamud’s committal to civil jail for six months, compensation for damaged property and medical expenses, as well as police intervention to secure the premises.
However, the court declined to award compensation for the alleged losses, ruling that the amounts claimed required specific proof. The plaintiffs were given the liberty to pursue the compensation claims separately.
The judge also directed the Officer Commanding Station (OCS) at Embakasi Police Station to ensure compliance with the August 28, 2025 orders and provide security for the company’s personnel and property.
Additionally, the court ordered Mohamud to be summoned to show cause why he should not be committed to civil jail for contempt of court.
The ruling reinforces the obligation of parties to comply with court orders while pursuing legal remedies where ownership or control of disputed property remains contested.
