Equilab Technologies Limited v County Secretary, Nairobi City County Government & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application 45 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3722 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondents should be cited for contempt of Court
- 2.Whether the 1st and 2nd Respondents' salaries should be frozen by the 3rd Respondent pending settlement of the decretal amount
Key legal issues
#Whether the Respondents were in contempt of the mandamus order issued on 21st June 2018
The Respondents were in contempt, having failed to pay the decretal sum despite full knowledge and service, and without offering explanations
The court applied Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act and section 4(1)(a) of the Contempt of Court Act defining civil contempt as willful disobedience of a court order. Drawing on North Tetu Farmers, Wildlife Lodges and Mutitika v Baharini Farm, it found the order's terms clear, the Respondents had notice, the decretal sum remained unpaid, and the failure was deliberate. The mandamus showed proper execution procedure against a government entity had been followed.
Whether the salaries of the 1st and 2nd Respondents should be frozen pending settlement of the decree
The prayer was declined because the decree was against the County and not against the individual officers personally
Although contempt was established, the court held that the individual officers were not personally liable as employees of the County; the decree ran against the County itself. Freezing their personal salaries would therefore be inappropriate. The court instead ordered the County to pay the updated decretal figures and issued show-cause summons against the officers under Section 29.
Legal principles established
#- Four elements must be proved for civil contempt: clear and unambiguous terms of the order binding on the defendant, knowledge or proper notice, breach of the terms, and deliberate conduct - proved to a standard higher than the balance of probabilities
- Every person against whom a court order is made is under a plain and unqualified obligation to obey it until discharged, whether the order is null or valid
- A decree-holder who has properly obtained mandamus against a government entity is entitled to the fruits of its judgment
Court orders
#- 1.The 3rd Respondent be and is hereby ordered to forthwith pay the Applicant's Advocates the sum of Kshs. 9,865,753.42 with interest at 12% per annum from 4th April 2024 until payment in full and Kshs. 2,061,771.05 with interest at 14% per annum from 4th April 2024 until payment in full
- 2.Summons be and are hereby issued to the County Secretary and the Chief Finance Officer, Nairobi County Government to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court and punished in accordance with Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act for failing to obey the terms of the order given on 21st June 2018
- 3.Costs of the two applications awarded and assessed at Kshs. 50,000 to be borne by the 3rd Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act; contempt jurisdiction over disobedience of orders issued in ELC No. 252 of 2015
Relief refused
#Freezing of the 1st and 2nd Respondents' salaries, benefits and allowances until the decretal amount is paid in full
The decree is against the County (3rd Respondent) and not against the 1st and 2nd Respondents personally as its employees
Conviction of the County Secretary and Chief Finance Officer to a fine of Kshs.1,000,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years
Instead of immediate conviction, the court issued summons to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt
Costs
The Costs of the two applications is awarded and assessed at Kshs. 50,000 to be borne by the 3rd Respondent.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In my view, the Applicant is entitled to enjoy the fruits of its judgment.
I find that the Respondents are indeed in contempt of the Court Order issued on 21st June 2018.
The 3rd Respondent be and is hereby ordered to forthwith pay the Applicant’s Advocates the sum of Kshs. 9,865,753.42 with interest at 12 % per annum from 4th April 2024 until payment in full and Kshs. 2,061,771.05 with interest at 14 % per annum from 4th April 2024 until payment in full.
Summons be and are hereby issued to the County Secretary and the Chief Finance Oficer, Nairobi County Government to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court and punished in accordance with Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Issues in the judgment
#Applicant's submissions cite Section 29 penalty as a fine of Kshs.2 million while the judgment quotes the section as a fine not exceeding twenty million shillings
Application dated 6th March 2019 sought a fine not exceeding Kshs.1,000,000 whereas Section 29 as quoted permits a fine not exceeding twenty million shillings
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Equilab Technologies Limited v County Secretary, Nairobi City County Government & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Judicial Review Application 45 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 3722 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC JR Application No. 45 of 2017 (Ruling). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3722/eng@2025-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.