Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment and Land Judicial Review Case E007 of 2022· [2026] KEELC 6134 (KLR)

Republic v County Secretary, County Government of Kiambu & 3 others; Legorn Feeds International Limited (Ex parte Applicant)

Environment and Land Court at Thika
30 September 2026
JOJ. M. Onyango
3,587 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a Governor cannot face contempt charges for unpaid county debts unless he personally disobeyed the order.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by Onyango J. determines a Notice of Motion dated 5th June 2025 filed by the four Respondents (Kiambu County officials) in judicial review proceedings in which Legorn Feeds International Limited obtained an order of mandamus on 9th November 2023 (Eboso J.) compelling the County Secretary, Chief Finance Officer and CEC Member for Finance to pay a decretal sum of Kshs. 15,159,605 plus taxed costs of Kshs. 510,082.10 arising from a 2021 judgment (Gacheru J.) for encroachment and demolition. The decretal sum remained unpaid, and the Ex parte Applicant filed contempt proceedings under Section 5 of the Judicature Act, on which a Notice to Show Cause was issued on 8th April 2025 against the current Governor and the CEC Member for Finance. The Respondents sought to stay execution of the summons and to set it aside as against the Governor, contending he was not a party to the judicial review proceedings, is not a member of the County Treasury under Section 103 of the Public Finance Management Act, and is not an accounting officer. The Ex parte Applicant opposed, relying on Article 179(4) of the Constitution and Sections 30(2)(h) and 30(3)(f) of the County Governments Act, arguing the Governor bears ultimate responsibility for county compliance. The Court held that contempt is personal and not a vehicle for vicarious or institutional responsibility; the mandamus was directed at three specific offices and the Governor was not bound by it, and no personal act of obstruction was averred. The Notice to Show Cause was set aside as against the Governor only; the contempt application proceeds against the CEC Member for Finance. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, the Court noting the Motion arose from the Respondents' continued failure to satisfy an undisputed decree.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Governor of Kiambu County, not being a party to the mandamus proceedings, could be summoned to show cause for contempt

Holding

The Notice to Show Cause against the Governor was set aside; the mandamus order was directed at three specific offices and the Governor was not bound by it, and no personal act of disobedience was alleged against him

Reasoning

The mandamus order was directed at the County Secretary, the Chief Officer Finance and the CEC Member for Finance, the officers the law charges with settling county obligations under the Public Finance Management Act and County Governments Act. The Governor's general executive accountability under Article 179(4) does not make him bound by a specific order. Contempt punishes personal disobedience, not vicarious or institutional responsibility. No averment of personal obstruction was made against the Governor.

p. 6
02

Whether the Governor could be liable as a non-party who aided or abetted the breach

Holding

No; the Replying Affidavit made no averment of personal participation, resting entirely on the Governor's office; the demand letter copied to his office goes only to knowledge, not participation

Reasoning

For non-party liability, cogent evidence was needed that the Governor, knowing of the order, took steps to obstruct or frustrate compliance, such as directing officers not to pay or blocking budgetary provision. The Replying Affidavit contained no such averment. The only link on record was a demand letter copied to the Office of the Governor, which may show knowledge but says nothing about personal participation in the breach.

p. 6
03

Whether a stay of the contempt proceedings should issue

Holding

Refused; prayer (b) was interim and spent, and no basis was laid for a wider stay since the Motion was directed only at the Governor

Reasoning

The stay sought was pending the inter partes hearing of the Motion, which has now been determined, rendering the prayer spent. To the extent a wider stay of the contempt proceedings was sought, the Motion was directed only at the Governor, and there was no reason to halt the contempt application against the CEC Member for Finance, who is bound by the order.

p. 7

Legal principles established

#
  • Contempt is personal; a person is punished for his own disobedience, not for the default of another; mere office or position without more does not suffice
  • A non-party may be liable for contempt only where, with knowledge of the order, he aids and abets its breach or knowingly acts to frustrate it
  • General executive accountability of a Governor is not the same as being bound by a specific court order; contempt is not a vehicle for vicarious or institutional responsibility
  • The standard of proof in contempt is higher than the civil standard but lower than beyond reasonable doubt

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 5th June 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer (c)
  2. 2.The Notice to Show Cause issued on 8th April 2025 is set aside to the extent that it relates to the Governor of Kiambu County
  3. 3.Prayers (a) and (b) of the Motion are spent
  4. 4.The application dated 10th March 2025 shall proceed to hearing as against the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, County Government of Kiambu, on a date to be fixed by the Court
  5. 5.Each party shall bear its own costs of the Motion
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 23, 48, 50(1) and 159(1) of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 10 Rule 2, Order 22 Rule 22, Order 29 Rule 2(2)(b) and (d) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v County Secretary, County Government of Kiambu & 3 others; Legorn Feeds International Limited (Ex parte Applicant)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E007 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6134/eng@2026-09-30

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.