Matoke v Oribu (Environment and Land Case 186 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 3432 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act CAP 9 confers jurisdiction on the High Court to entertain a contempt application relating to Court of Appeal orders
No - the provision applies to execution of judgments of the Court of Appeal, not to contempt proceedings
The Applicant relied on section 4 of Cap 9, which provides that a judgment of the Court of Appeal may be executed as if it were a judgment of the High Court. The court held this addresses execution of judgments, not the prosecution of an application for contempt, and therefore does not justify filing the contempt application before the High Court. The Respondent's objection that the application belonged before the Court of Appeal was sustained on this point.
Which court has power to punish contempt of Court of Appeal orders
The Court of Appeal itself has jurisdiction to punish disobedience of its own orders under section 35(1) of the Court of Appeal (Organization and Administration) Act and, following Kiru Tea Factory, the surviving framework of section 5 of the Judicature Act
The court traced the contempt framework: section 5 of the Judicature Act was repealed by section 38 of the Contempt of Court Act, which was itself declared unconstitutional for lack of public participation. Following Kiru Tea Factory Ltd v Stephen Maina Gathiga, an Act declared unconstitutional is void ab initio, so section 5 of the Judicature Act and section 35 of the Court of Appeal (Organization and Administration) Act were never deleted and remain in force. Since the order allegedly disobeyed was issued by the Court of Appeal, that court, not the High Court, is properly seised of the contempt application.
Whether the High Court could proceed to determine the contempt application on its merits
No - the court's jurisdiction was improperly invoked and the application was struck out
The Applicant affirmed, and the annexed copy of the order confirmed, that the order alleged to have been disobeyed was issued by the Court of Appeal. Because only the Court of Appeal can punish contempt of its own orders, the High Court's jurisdiction was improperly invoked and it could not proceed to determine the application on the merits, leaving the merits (including the alleged demolition of the structure on 28th October, 2025) undetermined.
Legal principles established
#- The Court of Appeal has statutory jurisdiction to punish disobedience of its own orders, and applications for contempt of such orders must be filed before the Court of Appeal, not the High Court
- An Act declared unconstitutional is void ab initio, so its repeals are also nullities; section 5 of the Judicature Act therefore remained in force after the Contempt of Court Act was declared unconstitutional (as per Kiru Tea Factory)
- Section 4 of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act Cap 9 concerns execution of judgments of the Court of Appeal, not the prosecution of contempt applications
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 6th November, 2025, is struck out for want of jurisdiction to entertain it
- 2.Each party to bear their costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 5 of the Judicature Act CAP 8 and section 5 of the Contempt of Court Act CAP 8F; the court found its jurisdiction improperly invoked because the order alleged to have been disobeyed was issued by the Court of Appeal
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Matoke v Oribu (Environment and Land Case 186 of 2016) [2026] KEELC 3432 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 6th December, 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3432/eng@2026-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.