Republic v Conty Government of Nakuru; Walia (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 230 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court ruled that Nakuru County's Finance CEC willfully disobeyed a payment order and must appear to explain why he should not be jailed.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondent willfully disobeyed the mandamus order of 24th September 2025
The court found that the Respondent was served with all processes and willfully disobeyed the order to pay the decretal sum
The court reviewed the chronology, which was not disputed, found a valid subsisting decree, and found the Applicant had served all requisite documents including the Certificate of Order which was acknowledged. The Respondent's claim of prematurity was rejected because the Applicant had complied with the laid-down procedures. The claim that the Certificate should have been served on the Attorney General was rejected since county governments are represented by County Attorneys. The Respondent neither triggered payment nor explained non-compliance, establishing willful disobedience.
The applicable test and standard of proof for committal for contempt
The court applied the test that the order must be clear and precise, disobedience wilful and deliberate, and the standard of proof higher than balance of probabilities though not beyond reasonable doubt
Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Micheal Sistu Mwaura Kamau v DPP & 4 others, the court adopted the three-part test: awareness of the order, clarity and precision of the order, and an elevated standard of proof. The court also invoked Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act, which criminalizes refusal or neglect to obey court orders, and Econet Wireless on the obligation to obey orders.
Whether service on the Attorney General was required for execution against a county government
No; county governments are represented by County Attorneys, not the Attorney General
The Respondent argued under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act that the Certificate of Order ought to be served on the Attorney General. The court held this contention factually and legally incorrect because county governments have their own County Attorneys who represent them in court cases, while the Attorney General represents the national government.
Legal principles established
#- To commit a person for contempt, the court must be satisfied of wilful and deliberate disobedience of a clear and precise order, on a standard of proof higher than balance of probabilities but below beyond reasonable doubt
- Every person against whom a court order is made is under an unqualified obligation to obey it until discharged, even if he believes it irregular or void
- No person may disregard court orders merely because they consider them illegal or irregular
Court orders
#- 1.That the CEC in Charge of Finance appear in court within 7 days to show cause why he should not be committed to Civil jail for failure to obey the court order
- 2.Costs of the application to the Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, Section 29 (contempt powers); contempt of the court's mandamus order of 24th September 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Conty Government of Nakuru; Walia (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 230 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 21st October, 2025 (arising from Nakuru ELC No. E037 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/230/eng@2026-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.