Republic v County Government of Nairobi & 2 others; Kingpost Limited (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 10 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 579 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found Nairobi County's Finance Executive in contempt for refusing to pay a court-ordered debt, rejecting the county's lack of budget as an excuse.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of the Motion and correct identification of the accounting officer
The Motion is competent; the 2nd Respondent, being the CECM for Finance with no demonstrated designate, was correctly cited
The Respondents argued that responsibility for public finance management lies with the CECM Finance and not the named contemnors. The court traced the term 'accounting officer' through Article 226 of the Constitution, Section 148 of the Public Finance Management Act and precedent. Since the Applicant specifically cited the CECM Finance and the 2nd Respondent did not demonstrate that another officer was designated to handle the county's financial affairs, the citation was correct and the objection failed.
Whether contempt was proved against the 2nd Respondent
Contempt was established: the orders were clear, service was demonstrated, the decree remains unpaid, and non-allocation of funds is no excuse
Applying the test for civil contempt, the court found the mandamus orders of 11th November 2021 clear and precise; service was demonstrated by stamped letters from the Office of the County Attorney and the Office of the CECM Finance; and non-payment was admitted. The plea of non-allocation of funds was rejected on the authority of the Egunza decision, Section 21(3) of the Government Proceedings Act imposing an unqualified statutory duty on the accounting officer, and the lapse of more than three financial cycles since the mandamus.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities but below proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Non-allocation of funds by Parliament or a County Assembly is not a defence to non-payment of decretal sums against a government entity
- The accounting officer of a County Government entity is the person designated under Section 148 of the Public Finance Management Act; failing designation, the responsibility falls on the County Executive Committee Member for Finance
- To establish civil contempt, the applicant must prove clear and binding order terms, the respondent's knowledge, failure to comply, and deliberate conduct
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Respondent, The County Executive Committee Member for Finance, County Government of Nairobi, is found to be in contempt of the Court's orders given on 11th November, 2021
- 2.The 2nd Respondent to appear before the court to show cause why he should not be detained in prison for a period of six months or such period that the court may please for contempt of court, or to mete out any other appropriate sentence
- 3.Costs of the Motion to be borne by the 1st Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act, Cap 8; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Nairobi & 2 others; Kingpost Limited (Exparte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case 10 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 579 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Judicial Review Motion dated 6th July, 2023 (arising from NRB ELC No 506 of 2008, formerly Thika ELC No 35 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/579/eng@2025-02-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.