County Government of Kilifi v Ngala (As Administrators of the Estate of Tsangwa Ngala Chome) & 5 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 127 of 2018) [2025] KECA 933 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Court of Appeal in Mombasa refused to jail government officers for disobeying a court order because the clan failed to prove the disobedience was deliberate and wilful.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the County Commissioner, Kilifi and the OCS Mariakani Police Station wilfully disobeyed the Court's order of 15th April 2024 directing them to provide adequate security
- 2.Whether the applicant discharged the burden of proving contempt to the required standard
- 3.Whether the officers should be committed to civil jail for six months or otherwise punished
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant proved wilful disobedience of the order of 15th April 2024 to the requisite standard
The application failed because the applicant did not discharge its burden; the OCS had explained the steps taken, including convening a baraza and requisitions for additional police officers under the Police Service Act, and parties had withdrawn from the mediation, so non-compliance was not wilful.
The court restated that contempt must be proved to a standard higher than balance of probabilities and that committal is a last resort requiring proof of deliberate, wilful conduct. The OCS's uncontroverted affidavit showed active steps toward compliance and explained that the vastness of the land, the volatile security situation, funding requirements under the Police Service Act, and withdrawals from the mediation frustrated implementation. The applicant's absence from the baraza also undermined its complaint. Accordingly, wilful disobedience was not established.
The court's power and duty to enforce compliance with its orders
Courts have inherent powers to punish for contempt and must not stand by as their orders are disobeyed; however, that power must be exercised with utmost care and only as a last resort.
The court reaffirmed, citing its own decision in Shimmers Plaza and the Supreme Court in Republic v Ahmad Abolfathi Mohammed, that obedience to court orders is mandatory and that the dignity and authority of the courts must be protected by punishing flagrant disobedience. This is balanced by the requirement of a heightened standard of proof and the caution that committal to jail must be exercised with utmost care as a last resort. The tension is resolved by demanding strict proof of wilful disobedience before any committal.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt matters is higher than the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt, and the power to commit for contempt must be exercised with utmost care and only as a last resort.
- Court orders are binding and must be obeyed; parties against whom they are made cannot disregard them with impunity, and those who flout them must be punished.
- Knowledge of a court order suffices for contempt purposes even without personal service.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 28th October 2024 seeking contempt orders against the County Commissioner, Kilifi and the OCS Mariakani Police Station is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Attorney General
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent powers of the Court to punish for contempt of its own orders in a pending appeal
Relief refused
#Committal of Mr. Josephat Biwott and Mr. Titus Mwaya to civil jail for six months (or such other period) and other punitive sanctions for contempt
The applicant failed to prove wilful disobedience to the required standard; the officers had explained steps taken and the obstacles to compliance
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs to the Attorney General, being the only party that actively defended the application.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In our view, the applicant has fallen short in proving wilful disobedience of the Court order. The application fails and is dismissed with costs to the Attorney General, being the only party that actively defended the application.
the standard of proof in contempt matters must be higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt.
Court orders must be obeyed. Parties against whom such orders are made cannot be allowed to trash them with impunity.
It is of utmost importance, therefore, for the respondents to establish that the alleged contemnor's conduct was deliberate, in the sense that he or she willfully acted in a manner that flouted the Court Order.
It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of, whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Kilifi v Ngala (As Administrators of the Estate of Tsangwa Ngala Chome) & 5 others (Civil Appeal (Application) 127 of 2018) [2025] KECA 933 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 28th October 2024 (in pending appeal). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/933/eng@2025-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.