Michael Girimbe v Inspector General National Police Service & 4 Others
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court convicted two officials of disobeying a land order, but let two others off because they were never personally served with it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Competence of contempt proceedings without leave
The application was not fatally defective; no leave is required for contempt based on breach of a court order under Rule 81.4
Relying on Christine Wangari Gachege, the court held that following the unconstitutionality of the Contempt of Court Act, the English Civil Procedure Rules Part 81 apply, and Rule 81.4 (breach of judgment, order or undertaking) requires an application notice without prior leave. The court expressed surprise that the Respondents relied on the same authority to argue leave was needed.
Service of the conservatory orders on the contemnors
The 3rd and 4th contemnors were properly served via WhatsApp (double grey ticks showing delivery); the 1st and 2nd were not personally served and were not liable
The process server's renewal fee receipt confirmed he was licensed. WhatsApp messages sent to the 3rd and 4th contemnors' known numbers showed double grey ticks, which the court held constitutes proof of delivery under Order 5 Rule 22(c). Service at 18.42 hours on a Tuesday was deemed effected the following business day. Service on the 1st and 2nd contemnors was by stamping at offices, not personal service.
Elements of civil contempt
All four elements (clear terms, knowledge, breach, deliberate conduct) were proven against the 3rd and 4th contemnors
Applying Samuel M.N. Mweru, the court found the order's terms clear and unambiguous (prohibiting eviction, ploughing, fencing, destruction), knowledge imputed by service, breach demonstrated by photographs of demolished houses and OB reports of malicious damage, and bad faith and deliberateness inferred absent rebuttal.
Legal principles established
#- No leave of the court is required to commence contempt proceedings for breach of a court order under Rule 81.4
- Service via WhatsApp mobile-enabled messaging is valid where a delivery receipt (double grey ticks) is shown, and service outside business hours is deemed effected on the next business day
- Personal service is mandatory before a person can be held liable for contempt
Court orders
#- 1.Prayers 2, 4 and 6 of the Notice of Motion found untenable and not granted
- 2.The 3rd and 4th contemnors (Stephen Emojong and Enrico Telewa Lyomu) convicted of contempt of court
- 3.The 1st and 2nd contemnors (Douglas Kanja and Hon. Kipchumba Murkomen) acquitted
- 4.The 3rd and 4th contemnors to appear personally and physically in court on 6th October 2026 for mitigation and sentencing
- 5.Costs of the application borne by the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act over contempt of its own conservatory orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Michael Girimbe v Inspector General National Police Service & 4 Others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC PET E003 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5571/eng@2026-09-17
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.