Republic v Principal Secretary, State Department for Roads & 3 others; Mogere (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E014 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2419 (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 are in contempt of the court orders issued on 6th March 2025 restraining the transfer of the Applicant
- 2.Whether the Respondents' assertion that the Applicant has not exhausted the appeal process to the Public Service Commission excuses non-compliance with the orders
Key legal issues
#Whether non-exhaustion of the internal appeal process to the Public Service Commission excuses breach of subsisting court orders
No. The Respondents admitted the transfer and could not ignore court orders for their own perceived valid reasons; their attitude was contemptuous.
The Respondents did not deny transferring the Applicant contrary to the orders of 6th March 2025; they argued only that the Applicant had not exhausted the appeal to the PSC. The court held that a party aggrieved by an order must seek review or appeal, not sit as an appellate court over its own obedience. The doctrine of ripeness and exhaustion therefore did not excuse defiance of a subsisting order.
Whether the elements of contempt were established against the Respondents
Yes. The orders were clear, served and known to the Respondents, and they deliberately breached them.
The Applicant relied on the Cecil Miller elements: clarity of the order, knowledge or notice, breach, and deliberateness. The order of 6th March 2025 restrained the transfer of the Applicant; it had not been reviewed or set aside; the Respondents were served and the 4th Respondent, as chief legal advisor to government, was taken to know the law. The failure to deny the transfer completed the elements of contempt.
Legal principles established
#- A party who considers a court order wrong must seek review or appeal and cannot simply disregard the order.
- Contempt may be established where the terms of the order were clear, the contemnor had notice, and the breach was deliberate.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondents are found guilty of contempt of the court orders issued on 6th March 2025 and found liable to punishment by the court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent contempt jurisdiction of the court over disobedience of its own orders of 6th March 2025 (no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited)
Relief refused
#Specific punishment (committal to civil jail), staying the transfer of Kimiriny Oloishuro, barring the Respondents from audience, and costs
The judgment records the finding of guilt and liability to punishment but does not set out formal final orders granting these specific reliefs or costs.
Costs
No costs order stated in the judgment
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 the circumstances of this case, the attitude of the Respondent is contemptuous to this court and I therefore find the Respondent contemnors guilty of contempt and find that they are liable to punishment by this court.
If indeed the Respondents are of the view that the orders this court granted shouldn't have been granted, they had an avenue to either seek review or appeal. The Respondents cannot sit back and decide not to obey the orders as though deciding on them as an appellate court.
The essence of law of contempt is to safeguard the Honour of the court and uphold the principles of the rule of law
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment announces a finding of guilt and liability to punishment but contains no formal final orders disposing of the specific prayers (committal, stay of the transfer, barring audience, costs).
The judgment does not state the case number or neutral citation, and the parties' names (e.g. the 1st-4th Respondents) are not fully set out in the coram.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v Principal Secretary, State Department for Roads & 3 others; Mogere (Ex parte Applicant) (Judicial Review Application E014 of 2025) [2025] KEELRC 2419 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/2419/eng@2025-09-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.