Ahmed v Mandera County Government; CECM Finance, Mandera County Government & another (Contemnor) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2023) (27 February 2026) (Directions) [2026] KEELC 1123 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether an application was necessary to permit the judgment debtor to deposit the decretal sum in court
No application was necessary; Order 22 Rule 1 permits payment into court and the court would notify the decree-holder and release the funds
The court noted Order 22 Rule 1 provides that money payable under a decree may be paid into court, directly to the decree-holder, or as the court directs. Nothing stopped the judgment debtor from paying through the court at any time. Framing the mode of payment as an issue requiring hearing and determination appeared to be a tactic to delay the day of reckoning.
Whether ongoing DCI investigations into the authenticity of the title justified holding sentencing in abeyance
The investigations were not a new matter and cannot amount to a stay of execution; if the intention was to keep the decree-holder from accessing the decretal sum until investigations end, that cannot be allowed as it was not part of the judgment
The court observed that the issue of investigations existed when the contemnors' previous application was heard and dismissed. The attachments to the supporting affidavit predated an earlier ruling. Litigation must come to an end, and the multiplicity of applications by the respondent/contemnors was causing undue delay, contrary to Article 159(2)(b) & (d) and the overriding objectives of the Civil Procedure Act.
Legal principles established
#- Payment of a decretal sum may be made into court under Order 22 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules without an application, and the court would then notify the decree-holder and release the funds
- Pending criminal investigations cannot operate as a stay of execution of a judgment or decree
Court orders
#- 1.The respondent to pay the decretal sum of Kshs.11,730,733.33 directly to the decree-holder, or alternatively deposit it with the court, within thirty (30) days
- 2.Such payment/deposit constitutes compliance with the decree in Garissa ELC 27 of 2018 for purposes of the contempt proceedings; the contempt against the 1st & 2nd contemnors be deemed purged and the sentencing proceedings consequent upon non-payment be vacated
- 3.Upon payment of the decretal sum to the court, the Deputy Registrar to notify the decree-holder and release/transmit the same to him
- 4.Should the respondent fail to comply within the time given, warrants of arrest against the 1st & 2nd contemnors be re-issued, executed through the OCPD, Mandera East Sub-County, and they be brought to court on 28th April 2026 for sentencing for contempt
- On appeal from
- string|null
- string|null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(b) & (d) of the Constitution; sections 1A & 1B Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); section 19(1) of the Land and Environment Act No. 19 of 2011 (as cited by the court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ahmed v Mandera County Government; CECM Finance, Mandera County Government & another (Contemnor) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2023) (27 February 2026) (Directions) [2026] KEELC 1123 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1123/eng@2026-02-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.