Republic v County Secretary, County Government of Kiambu & 3 others; Legorn Feeds International Limited (Ex parte Applicant)
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
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Notice to Show Cause issued on 8th April 2025 ought to be set aside as against the Governor of Kiambu County, on the grounds that he was not a party to the judicial review proceedings and is not a member of the County Treasury or an accounting officer
- 2.Whether the Respondents have made out a case for a stay of the Notice to Show Cause and of the contempt proceedings
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the Governor of Kiambu County, not being a party to the mandamus proceedings, could be summoned to show cause for contempt
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
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.
Whether the Governor could be liable as a non-party who aided or abetted the breach
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
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.
Whether a stay of the contempt proceedings should issue
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
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.
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.The Notice of Motion dated 5th June 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer (c)
- 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.Prayers (a) and (b) of the Motion are spent
- 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.Each party shall bear its own costs of the Motion
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- 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
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the summons and punishment for contempt (prayer b)
The prayer was interim and spent; no basis laid for a wider stay of the contempt proceedings against the CEC Member for Finance, who is bound by the order
Wider stay of the contempt proceedings
The Motion was directed only at the Governor; no reason to halt contempt proceedings against the CEC Member for Finance
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs of the Motion.
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.
Contempt is personal. A person is punished for his own disobedience, not for the default of another.
However, general executive accountability is not the same thing as being bound by a specific order of this Court. Contempt punishes personal disobedience. It is not a vehicle for vicarious or institutional responsibility.
The Notice to Show Cause issued on 8th April 2025 is hereby set aside to the extent that it relates to the Governor of Kiambu County.
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.
Each party shall bear its own costs of the Motion.
To establish civil contempt, an applicant must prove that the terms of the order were clear, unambiguous and binding on the alleged contemnor.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated and delivered virtually at Malindi although the case is filed in the Environment and Land Court at Thika
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.