Odindo & 13 others v County Government of Kisumu (Judicial Review E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 692 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court dismissed an attempt to jail Kisumu County officials for unpaid decrees because the applicants skipped mandatory enforcement steps against government.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Prematurity of the contempt application for non-compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
The application was premature because the certificate of order against the Government had not been obtained or served before the application was filed
Section 21(1) requires an application for a certificate of order against the Government 21 days after judgment or after taxation of costs. The certificate on record was dated 3rd February 2025, long after the motion filed on 13th December 2024. Form 22 was never served on the respondents or County Attorney. Service of the certificate is a condition precedent to enforcement, so the contempt application failed on this score.
Ingredients and standard of proof of civil contempt
The applicant failed to prove the ingredients of contempt, particularly breach and deliberateness, to the applicable elevated standard
Citing Samuel Mweru v National Land Commission, the court required proof of the terms of the order, knowledge, breach and deliberate conduct. The court found the respondents had not been accorded reasonable time to pay and that Form 22 had not been served, so there was no proper service of the terms. The standard of proof is intermediate, closer to beyond reasonable doubt, per Mutitika v Baharini Farm.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities but not quite beyond reasonable doubt
- A certificate of order against the Government, obtained after 21 days of judgment and served on the Attorney-General/County Attorney, is a condition precedent to enforcement of money decrees against government
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's Notice of Motion dated 12th December, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicature Act, Government Proceedings Act, Public Finance Management Act, Civil Procedure Act and Rules, and Article 159 of the Constitution (as cited in the Notice of Motion)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odindo & 13 others v County Government of Kisumu (Judicial Review E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 692 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/692/eng@2025-03-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.