Odindo v County Government of Kisumu (Judicial Review E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1519 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court found Kisumu County officials in contempt for failing to pay Kshs.16 million to former employees, giving them three months to pay or face jail.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Compliance with Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act as a precondition to enforcement against the Government
The Certificate of Order Against the County Government of Kisumu was properly served on the County Attorney on 5th February 2025, satisfying Section 21(2) of the Government Proceedings Act
The court adopted Githua J's reasoning that the certificate of costs must be obtained from the issuing court after expiry of 21 days from entry of judgment and served on the Attorney General, whereupon a statutory duty falls on the accounting officer to pay. The court found that the certificate was served on the County Attorney on 5th February 2025, hence the precondition was met in this case, even though costs had not been taxed.
Whether the ingredients of civil contempt were established
The orders were clear and served; the respondents' failure to pay despite service of the certificate showed no willingness to comply or good faith, negating an inference against deliberate conduct
Applying the four elements from Samuel Mweru v National Land Commission (clear order; knowledge; breach; deliberateness), the court found the orders clear and unambiguous and duly served. The respondents' replying affidavit revealed neither payment nor demonstrable good faith, only a budget-process explanation. The court therefore found the respondents liable to be cited for contempt but deferred sentence, giving them three months to comply.
Standard of proof in contempt proceedings
The standard is higher than balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt, as held in Mutitika v Baharini Farm Ltd
The court rejected the respondents' submission that the applicant had to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt, holding instead, following the Court of Appeal in Mutitika v Baharini Farm, that the standard is intermediate, almost but not exactly beyond reasonable doubt, because committal affects the contemnor's liberty.
Legal principles established
#- The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is higher than the balance of probabilities but not beyond reasonable doubt
- The only condition precedent to enforcement of money decrees against the Government is the obtaining and service of a certificate of order against the Government under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act
- Knowledge of an order by the advocate of the alleged contemnor suffices in contempt proceedings
Court orders
#- 1.The respondents stand cited for contempt of court for failing to pay the applicants the sum of Kshs.16,000,000.00 (sixteen million) as ordered by the court
- 2.The respondents have three (3) months to honour the court Order as per the Certificate of Order Against the Government dated 3rd February, 2025, failing which sentence will follow
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicature Act, Government Proceedings Act, Public Finance Management Act, Civil Procedure Act and Rules, Article 159 of the Constitution
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odindo v County Government of Kisumu (Judicial Review E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELRC 1519 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/1519/eng@2025-05-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.