https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/12248

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KISUMU** **CIVIL CASE NO. E018 OF 2026** **MOMBASA SUGAR REFINERY LIMITED** ....................**1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **KIBOS SUGAR & ALLIED INDUSTRIES LIMITED** ... **2ND PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **JASPREET SINGH CHATTHE** ........................................ **3RD PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **RAGHBIR SINGH CHATTHE** ......................................... **4TH PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **SUKHWINDER SINGH CHATTHE** ................................ **5TH PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **KUNNISERY CHIDAMBARAM HARIHARAN** ............ **6TH PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** * **VERSUS -** **STANDARD GROUP PLC** .......................................... **1ST DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR** **EDITOR-IN-CHIEF, STANDARD GROUP PLC** .... **2ND DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR** **KTN NEWS** ................................................................... **3RD DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR** **DAVID ODONGO** ........................................................ **4TH DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR** **CATHERINE IMURAGET** ......................................... **5TH DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR** **HERMAN KAMARIKI** ............................................... **6TH DEFENDANT/CONTEMNOR** **CHAACHA MWITA** .............................................................................. **7TH CONTEMNOR** **R U L I N G** 1. By a Notice of Motion dated **3/6/2026,** the applicants sought that the respondents be cited and punished for contempt of court for allegedly disobeying the orders issued by this Court on **22/5/2026**. The application was supported by an affidavit of the 6th applicant together with a supplementary, further and second further affidavits sworn on **15/6/2026**, **26/6/2026** and **29/6/2026**, respectively. 2. The application was opposed through the Replying Affidavit of **Ogola Esperance** sworn on **30/6/2026** on behalf of the respondents. 3. The background to the application is that applicants had moved the Court for injunctive reliefs against the respondents in respect of publications relating to an article titled **"Ksh3b Sugar Scam."** The applicationwas served but the respondents failed to turn up on the return date**.** Upon hearing the applicants, this Court issued, *inter alia*, an order directing the respondents, within three days, to remove the impugned publication from all platforms under their control, including websites, online repositories, algorithmically promoted content and all social media platforms within their control or sphere of influence. 4. Further, the Court restrained the respondents from uttering, publishing, republishing, broadcasting, disseminating, reposting, rebroadcasting, hyperlinking, indexing, algorithmically promoting or otherwise publicising the impugned publication or any related publication pending the hearing and determination of the application. The order carried a penal notice warning the respondents of the consequences of non-compliance. 5. The applicants contend that despite service and full knowledge of the said orders, the respondents persistently continued publishing and republishing the impugned article on numerous digital and social media platforms over a period exceeding one month, thereby deliberately disobeying the said order. 6. It was contended that the application concerned the deliberate disobedience of lawful court orders and raised fundamental questions regarding the rule of law and the authority of the Court. Counsel for the applicants submitted that impunity and deliberate disregard of court orders pose a serious threat to the rule of law and the administration of justice. 7. He cited **Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] eKLR** for the proposition that before a finding of contempt can be made, an applicant must establish the existence of a valid court order, knowledge of that order by the alleged contemnor and conduct constituting breach of the order. 8. Counsel submitted that all those ingredients had been fully established by the applicants. That the order of **22/5/2026** was clear and unequivocal as it directed the respondents within three days to remove the impugned publications from all their platforms and restraining them from any further publication or republication of the impugned material. 9. That service was of the order was effected upon the respondents and an Affidavit of Service filed. That on **5/6/2026**, counsel for the applicants personally reminded counsel for the respondents of the subsisting court orders through electronic mail, which correspondence was exhibited as an Annexure in the supplementary affidavit. That on **16/6/2026**, the respondents were once again reminded of the existence and binding nature of the orders. That despite those reminders, the respondents deliberately continued to republish the impugned story across numerous platforms. 10. That on **2/6/2026**, the respondents republished the impugned article on their website. That on the same date, **KTN YouTube** also republished the impugned story, evidence of which was exhibited in the Supplementary Affidavit. That on **4/6/2026**, the respondents carried a full-page article on page four of the *Standard* newspaper republishing the said impugned story, contrary to the express terms of the Court's order. 11. That further, on **23/6/2026** and **25/6/2026**, the respondents once again disseminated the impugned publication through the **KTN YouTube** platform, as demonstrated by the annexures contained in the further supplementary affidavit dated **26/6/2026**. That on **29/6/2026**, the impugned publication continued appearing on **KTN News YouTube**, **Spice FM**, **Facebook**, **Instagram** and **Radio Maisha** platforms, all of which were exhibited in the second further supplementary affidavit sworn on **29/6/2026**. 12. Counsel submitted that the chronology demonstrates not a single isolated omission but repeated and continuous breaches of the orders issued by this Court over a period exceeding one month. 13. It was submitted that the explanation advanced by the respondents that they were attempting to comply was inconsistent with the overwhelming evidence of repeated republications after service of the Court orders. That their conduct amounted to wilful disobedience. The Court of Appeal case of **Teachers Service Commission v Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 Others [2013] eKLR**, was cited for the proposition that obedience of court orders is indispensable to the maintenance of the rule of law. 14. Counsel consequently urged the Court to find the Respondents guilty of contempt and direct that they personally appear before Court for mitigation and sentencing. 15. As already stated, the respondents opposed the application through the replying affidavit sworn on **30/6/2026** by **Ogola Esperance**, the Legal Officer of the 1st respondent. The respondents maintained that they never intended to disobey the Court; that they immediately embarked on the process of compliance; that the publications complained of remained online inadvertently owing to the multiplicity of their digital platforms; and that whenever any remaining links were brought to their attention, they promptly caused them to be removed. 16. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents had at all material times respected the authority of the Court and had never deliberately sought to undermine the rule of law or the administration of justice. That contempt proceedings attract grave consequences, including denial of audience, deprivation of liberty and monetary sanctions. Consequently, the Court ought to exercise the jurisdiction with utmost caution and only where the ingredients of contempt have been established to the requisite standard. 17. The respondents admitted that immediately upon becoming aware of the order, they commenced the process of ensuring compliance. The same was communicated internally to the editorial, legal, digital and technical departments of the 1st respondent with express instructions that the impugned publication be removed from all platforms under the respondents' management and control. 18. That they filed an application dated **5/6/2026** seeking to stay and set aside those orders. That Court subsequently directed that both the application seeking to set aside the orders and the present application for contempt be heard together. 19. It was counsel's submission that when the matter came before the Court on **16/6/2026**, further directions were issued requiring the respondents to ensure that the impugned publication was removed from all platforms. 20. Counsel submitted that immediately after receiving those directions, his learned colleague communicated the same to the respondents who, in turn, intensified the process of removing the impugned material from all platforms under their control. 21. The Court was referred to the internal electronic mail correspondence exhibited to the replying affidavit, particularly the communication from one **John Mwai**, who informed the legal department that the impugned publications had been removed from the respondents' digital and social media platforms. That the 1st respondent operates numerous media platforms, including websites, YouTube channels, Facebook pages, Instagram pages, radio platforms and other digital repositories, all of which are administered by different departments and personnel. 22. That because of the multiplicity of those platforms, some links inadvertently remained accessible notwithstanding the respondents' efforts to comply with the orders. That whenever any outstanding publication or hyperlink was specifically brought to the respondents' attention by the applicants, immediate steps were taken to remove the same. That any remaining publication was neither deliberate nor intentional but was merely the result of human error and operational oversight. 23. Counsel submitted that the Applicants had misconstrued isolated inadvertent omissions as deliberate defiance and urged the Court to find that the high threshold applicable in contempt proceedings had not been satisfied. 24. He therefore prayed that the Notice of Motion dated **3/6/2026** be dismissed with costs. 25. In rejoinder, Counsel for the applicants submitted that the defence of good faith and inadvertence was not available to the respondents at the stage of determining liability for contempt. That considerations such as inadvertence, remorse, good faith and subsequent compliance properly arise during mitigation after a finding of contempt has been made and not at the stage of determining whether contempt has been established. 26. The Court has considered the rival affidavits by the parties, the annexures thereto and the submissions by Learned Counsel. This is an application to cite the respondents for contempt of court. 27. Contempt of court jurisdiction occupies a unique place in the administration of justice. It exists not for the protection of the personal interests of litigants but for the preservation of the authority, dignity and effectiveness of the judicial process. Courts do not issue orders in vain. If parties were permitted to choose which court orders to obey and which to ignore, the rule of law would quickly give way to anarchy. 28. In [**Republic v Speaker of the National Assembly & 4 others Ex-Parte Edward R.O. Ouko [2017] KEHC 9413 (KLR)**](https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2017/9413/eng%402017-09-22)**,** the court observed that no person, regardless of status, is above the law and that obedience to lawful court orders is the hallmark of constitutional governance. 29. In **Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General & Another [2018] eKLR,** the court held that: - **“*Courts therefore punish for contempt to insulate its processes for purposes of compliance so that the rule of law and administration of justice are not undermined. Without this power or where it is limited or diminished, the court is left helpless and its decisions would mean nothing. This ultimately erodes public confidence in the courts; endangers the rule of law, administration of justice and more importantly, development of society. That is why the court stated in Carey v Laiken [2015] SCC17 that; “Contempt of court rests on the power of the court to uphold its dignity and process. The rule of law is directly dependent on the ability of the courts to enforce their process and maintain their dignity and respect*”** 1. In **Nthabiseng Pheko v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality & another CCT 19/11(75/2015)**. Nkabinde J observed that: - **“*The rule of law, a foundational value of***[***the constitution***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution)***, requires that the dignity and authority of the courts be upheld. This is crucial, as the capacity of courts to carry out their functions depends upon it. As***[***the constitution***](https://kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/act/2010/constitution)***commands, orders and decisions issued by a court bind all persons to whom and organs of state to which they apply, and no person or organ of state may interfere in any matter, with the functioning of the courts. It follows from this that disobedience towards courts orders or decisions risks rendering our courts impotent and judicial authority a mere mockery. The effectiveness of court orders or decisions is substantially determined by the assurance that they will be enforced*.”** 1. In **Canadian Metal Co. Ltd v Canadian Broadcasting Corp(N0.2) [1975] 48 D.LR(30)**, the court stated that: - **“*To allow court orders to be disobeyed would be to tread the road toward anarchy. If orders of the court can be treated with disrespect, the whole administration of justice is brought into scorn… if the remedies that the courts grant to correct… wrongs can be ignored, then there will be nothing left for each person but to take the law into his own hands. Loss of respect for the courts will quickly result into the destruction of our society*.”** 1. That then is how serious courts all over the word guard against wilful disobedience of court orders. It is for the maintenance of social order through the rule of law and not for the personal dignity or authority of the subject Judge or court that made the order. 2. In **Shimmers Plaza Limited v National Bank of Kenya Limited [2015] eKLR**, the Court of Appeal held that an applicant seeking to establish contempt must demonstrate: the existence of a valid court order, that the order was clear, precise and unambiguous, that the alleged contemnor had knowledge of the order and that there was deliberate disobedience of the order. 3. The standard of proof in contempt proceedings is also settled. In the case of **Mutitika vs Baharini Farm Limited [1985] KLR 229, 234** the Court of Appeal held that: - **“In our view, the standard of proof in contempt proceedings must be higher than proof on the balance of probabilities, almost but not exactly, beyond reasonable doubt...The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt ought to be left where it belongs, to wit, in criminal cases. It is not safe to extend it to an offence which** ***can be said to be quasi-criminal in nature.”*** 1. Although contempt proceedings are civil in nature, the consequences are penal. Accordingly, the applicable standard is higher than proof on a balance of probabilities though not as high as proof beyond reasonable doubt. 2. In the present case, there was an order made on **22/5/2026.** The terms of the said order were clear and unambiguous. The Court directed the respondents, within three days, to remove the impugned publication from **all** platforms under their control, including websites, online repositories, algorithmically promoted content and social media platforms. The Court simultaneously restrained them from publishing, republishing, broadcasting, disseminating, reposting, rebroadcasting, hyperlinking or otherwise publicising the impugned publication pending the hearing and determination of the application. The order bore a penal notice warning of the consequences of non-compliance. 3. There is therefore proof of the existence of a valid court order whose terms were clear and unambiguous. It required the removal of the publication from **all platforms under the respondents' control**. The obligation imposed was therefore comprehensive and immediate. Accordingly, the first ingredient has been fully established. 4. In **Basil Criticos Vs** **Attorney General and 8 Others [2012] eKLR** the Court observed that: - **“... the law has changed and as it stands today knowledge supersedes personal service ... where a party clearly acts and shows that he had knowledge of a Court Order, the strict requirement that personal service must be proved is rendered unnecessary”** 1. The evidence before Court establishes beyond doubt that the respondents had actual knowledge of the orders. First, the order was served. Secondly, Counsel for the applicants addressed correspondence to counsel for the respondents reminding them of the subsisting orders. Thirdly, the respondents themselves admit in the replying affidavit that immediately they became aware of the Court orders, they communicated them internally to their legal, editorial, digital and technical departments with instructions that compliance be effected. 2. Knowledge of the order was never disputed. Instead, the respondents defence was that they had substantially complied and that any remaining publications were inadvertent. That concession completely settles the issue of knowledge. The Court therefore finds that the second ingredient equally been proved. 3. The next issue is whether the order had been disobeyed. This is the central issue in the application. The respondents urge the Court to accept that they substantially complied with the orders and that any remaining publications resulted from inadvertent omissions occasioned by the multiplicity of their digital platforms. 4. This is difficult to agree with. The chronology emerging from the evidence on record points towards a different story. The Court order was issued on **22/5/2026**. Compliance was required **within three days**. According to the evidence produced by the applicants, the impugned publications remained accessible and continued appearing on different platforms on **2/6/2026**, **4/6/2026**, **23/6/2026**, **25/6/2026**, **26/6/2026** and even **29/6/2026**. 5. These were not isolated incidents occurring within hours of service. Neither were they confined to one forgotten hyperlink. Rather, the evidence discloses repeated accessibility and dissemination across several media platforms extending for well over one month after the order had been issued and served. 6. Significantly, the respondents do not deny that some of these publications remained online. Indeed, paragraphs 10 to 16 of the replying affidavit expressly acknowledge that investigations undertaken by the respondents revealed that at least one publication had remained accessible on YouTube and that the omission was only discovered after service of the applicants' further supplementary affidavit. The respondents attributed that state of affairs to inadvertence. 7. That explanation, in the view of this Court, did not answer the complaint before Court. The order required removal of the publication from **all platforms** within three days. It did not require partial compliance. It did not authorise phased compliance. It did not permit removal only after individual links had been pointed out by the applicants. Nor did it allow the respondents to determine which of their numerous platforms would comply immediately and which would comply later. 8. The obligation imposed by the order was singular and unequivocal **complete compliance**. The respondents' explanation that they operate numerous digital platforms cannot dilute that obligation. On the contrary, the larger the media organisation and the wider the dissemination of its publications, the greater the responsibility resting upon it to ensure prompt and complete obedience of the order. It was not for the respondents to wait for the applicants to point out the offending publications, but rather for the respondents to proactively look for them and pull them down. 9. Compliance with a court order cannot depend upon repeated reminders from the successful litigant. Once the order was served, the legal obligation shifted entirely to the respondents to ensure complete compliance. The Court is unable to accept the argument that the application dated **5/6/2026** seeking to stay or set aside the orders somehow excused incomplete compliance. 10. The law is settled beyond argument that filing an application to review, vary or set aside a court order does not suspend its operation. In **Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285**, it was emphatically stated that it is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against whom an order is made to obey it unless and until it is discharged. A party cannot choose whether or not to obey a court order merely because it considers the order erroneous or has moved the court to set it aside. 11. Accordingly, the respondents remained under a continuing legal duty to obey the orders of **22/5/2026** until such time as those orders were varied or vacated. They did not obtain a stay. The obligation therefore remained absolute. 12. The Court is equally not persuaded by the submission that inadvertence is a complete defence to contempt. In appropriate circumstances, genuine inadvertence, prompt corrective action and demonstrated remorse may properly be considered in mitigation once liability has been established. 13. However, where the evidence demonstrates continuing non-compliance over an extended period despite repeated reminders and repeated opportunities to comply, inadvertence ceases to be a satisfactory explanation. 14. One month after this Court directed compliance within three days, the respondents were still removing offending publications as and when fresh links were identified by the applicants. That cannot by any objective standard constitute compliance with the orders. It amounted to continuing disobedience of the order. 15. The next question is whether that disobedience was wilful. In the circumstances of this case, the Court answers that question in the affirmative. Knowledge of the order is admitted. The obligation imposed by the order was clear. The respondents possessed complete control over the digital platforms upon which the impugned publications appeared. Despite that knowledge and control, complete compliance was not achieved within the period ordered by the Court, nor indeed for more than one month thereafter. 16. In view of the forgoing, the Court finds that applicants have proved, to the requisite standard, that there existed a valid and enforceable order of **22/5/2026**; that the terms of the order were clear, precise and unequivocal; that the respondents had actual knowledge of the order and that despite such knowledge, they failed to obey the said order. Finally, that the failure to comply was deliberate. 17. Court orders are not mere suggestions. Neither are they invitations for negotiated compliance. They are commands which remain binding until lawfully set aside. It matters not whether a litigant believes the order to have been wrongly issued or intends to challenge it on appeal or by review. The obligation of obedience subsists until the order ceases to exist. See **Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P 285**. 18. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders: - 19. The Notice of Motion dated **3/6/2026** is hereby **allowed**. 20. The respondents, namely **Standard Group PLC, the Editor-in-Chief, KTN News, David Odongo, Catherine Imuraget, Herman Kamariki and Chaacha Mwita**, are hereby found to be **in contempt of the orders of this Court issued on 22/5/2026**. 21. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents shall personally appear before this Court **on 23/9/2026** for purposes of mitigation and sentencing. 22. The applicants shall have the costs of the application. It is so ordered. **DATED** and **DELIVERED** at **KISUMU** this **31st** day of **July, 2026**. **A. MABEYA, FCI Arb** **JUDGE**