Kishau & 2 others (Suing as officials and on behalf of Ewangan Tourism Cultural Centre) v National Land Commission (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 3384 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court ruled that contempt warrants against the National Land Commission's Chairman were invalid because he is not the commission's accounting officer.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the warrants of arrest issued against the Chairman of the Respondent were lawful and procedurally proper
The warrants were improper insofar as they targeted the Chairman, who is not the accounting officer; they were set aside only to that extent, with leave to amend to name the Chief Executive Officer
The court noted the Chairman is not the accounting officer of the National Land Commission, agreeing with the Respondent's submission. However, the Respondent was aware of the proceedings from inception and chose not to participate, and the decretal sum remains partly unpaid. The court therefore struck a balance: setting aside the warrants only as against the Chairman while permitting amendment to reflect the Chief Executive Officer as the proper contemnor.
Whether execution proceedings against a constitutional commission can lawfully proceed under the Civil Procedure Rules
Execution against the Government follows Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, and the prior contempt/execution orders were not permanently stayed; the Applicants may proceed against the correct officer
The court applied the framework in Republic vs Permanent Secretary Ministry of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security, confirming that a certificate of costs served on the Attorney General imposes a statutory duty on the accounting officer to pay. Since the Respondent had acknowledged paying the principal but not the balance, and had knowingly declined to participate in the contempt proceedings, a permanent stay was not warranted.
Legal principles established
#- The chairman of the National Land Commission is not its accounting officer and execution/contempt proceedings cannot properly be directed at him personally
- The procedure for initiating execution against the Government is set out in Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act, requiring a certificate of costs served on the Hon. Attorney General
Court orders
#- 1.Declined to permanently stay the orders made on 15th December, 2025 and the warrants of arrest dated 7th January, 2026
- 2.Set aside the warrants of arrest dated 7th January, 2026 to the extent that they refer to the Chairman of the Respondent
- 3.Gave the Applicants fourteen (14) days to file an application to amend the same to reflect the Chief Executive Officer as the contemnor
- 4.Ordered each party to bear own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1 and 1A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 and Orders 1 Rule 15, 9 Rule 11, 22 Rule 52 and 51 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kishau & 2 others (Suing as officials and on behalf of Ewangan Tourism Cultural Centre) v National Land Commission (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 3384 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3384/eng@2026-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.