Auma v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5324 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court ruled Kisumu County wrongly deducted tax from a court award, must pay the remaining Kshs. 120,692.76 within 30 days, or face jail for contempt.
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 Respondent was entitled in law to deduct Value Added Tax, withholding tax and the procurement levy from the decretal sum
- 2.whether the taxed costs of Kshs. 87,555/= form part of the sum for the non-payment of which the Respondent stands in contempt
- 3.whether the contempt found on 27th October 2025 has been purged, and what consequential orders ought to issue
Key legal issues
#Lawfulness of the three deductions from the decretal sum
The deductions of VAT, withholding tax and the PPRA levy were made without lawful basis and are of no legal effect against the decree holder
A court decree is not income chargeable under section 3(1) read with section 10 of the Income Tax Act; following A.M. Bahaji and Cape Brandy Syndicate, tax liability must be found in clear statutory words. The decree holder made no taxable supply under the VAT Act and there was no procurement contract to attract the PPRA levy. The withholding tax certificate wrongly described the advocate as the withholdee.
Whether taxed costs form part of the contempt sum
The taxed costs of Kshs. 87,555/= form part of the sum for non-payment of which the Respondent stands in contempt
The contempt declaration of 27th October 2025 covered the order of 8th July 2024 entire, including the costs limb; the court is functus officio on that finding. The Certificate of Taxation satisfies section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act in substance, and the objection was raised too late by a party already in contempt who never disputed the taxation.
Whether the contempt has been purged and what sanction should follow
The contempt has been purged in part only; one final opportunity of thirty days to pay Kshs. 120,692.76 was granted, failing which the Chief Officer, Finance shall attend for sentencing
Civil contempt is primarily coercive, not punitive. The greater part of the decretal sum was paid before the present round of affidavits and the shortfall arose from an obstinate but erroneous view of fiscal obligations within an institutional payment system. Against that, the order was disobeyed for some seventeen months and the A.M. Bahaji authority was never distinguished.
Legal principles established
#- A party against whom a money order is made cannot satisfy it in part or net it down according to its own view of its fiscal obligations
- A court decree is not taxable income under the Income Tax Act
- Where a deduction has been made without lawful basis, the burden of undoing it rests on the party who made it
Court orders
#- 1.Declaration that the deductions of Kshs. 8,459.12 (VAT), Kshs. 24,531.45 (withholding tax) and Kshs. 147.19 (procurement levy), aggregating Kshs. 33,137.76, from the decretal sum of Kshs. 490,629/= were made without lawful basis and are of no legal effect as against the decree holder
- 2.Finding that the contempt declared on 27th October 2025 has been purged in part only, and that Kshs. 120,692.76 remains outstanding under the order of 8th July 2024
- 3.The Chief Officer, Finance, County Government of Kisumu shall pay the sum of Kshs. 120,692.76 to the decree holder within thirty (30) days
- 4.In default, the Chief Officer, Finance shall attend court in person and the court shall proceed to sentence without further notice
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs of these further proceedings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Contempt and enforcement jurisdiction over the court's own orders of mandamus issued in judicial review (ELC JR No. E001 of 2024)
Relief refused
#Immediate sentencing of the contemnor
The court afforded the Respondent one final opportunity to purge the contempt, coercive rather than punitive purpose prevailing
A further award of costs to the decree holder
Each party succeeded in part and a further award would add to a disproportionate cost burden
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of these further proceedings.
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.
A declaration be and is hereby issued that the deductions of Kshs. 8,459.12 on account of Value Added Tax, Kshs. 24,531.45 on account of withholding tax and Kshs. 147.19 on account of the procurement levy, aggregating Kshs.
In default of compliance with order (iii), the Chief Officer, Finance, County Government of Kisumu shall attend this court in person and the court shall proceed to sentence without further notice.
The Chief Officer, Finance, County Government of Kisumu shall, within thirty days (30) days of the date hereof, cause the sum of Kshs. 120,692.76 to be paid to the decree holder.
An order of this court commanding the payment of a specified sum of money is not an invoice.
Payments made in satisfaction of court decrees are not procurement payments and ought not to be treated as such.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Auma v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E001 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 5324 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC JR NO. E001 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5324/eng@2026-08-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.