https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1665

Republic v Governor, Kajiado County HE Joseph Ole Lenku & 3 others (Judicial Review Application E042 of 2025) [2026] KEELRC 1665 (KLR) (18 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1665 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi Judicial Review Application E042 of 2025 M Mbarũ, J June 18, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and The Governor, Kajiado County HE Joseph Ole Lenku 1st Respondent Kajiado County, Public Service Board 2nd Respondent Chairperson of Kajiado County, Public Service Board 3rd Respondent and Jonathan Kulei Marima Ex parte Applicant Ruling 1.The ex parte application filed this application dated 17 March 2026 under the provisions of Section 5 of the Judicature Act, Sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking orders:a.Spent.b.The court does cite the 1st respondent, HE Joseph Ole Lenku, Governor of Kajiado County, George Letema, and Chairperson of the Kajiado County Public Service Board, for contempt of court for their willful and mala fide disobedience of the court orders issued on 30 October 2025.c.The respondents are to be held in contempt for failing to comply with the directive for payment of the ex parte applicant’s salary from August 2023 to September 2025, including the accrued interests, benefits totalling Ksh. 6,535,894 and assessed costs Ksh. 191,788.40.d.An order of committal be issued against the 1st and 3rd respondents to civil jail for a term of 6 months or such other period as the court may deem fit, until they purge their contempt by fully complying with the orders of 30 October 2025.e.In the alternative to (d) above, the court imposes a fine on the 1st and 3rd respondents or any other punishment permitted under the law.f.The 1st and 3rd respondents are ordered to appear personally in court to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court.g.The respondents will bear the costs of this application. 2.The ex parte applicant supports the application because, on 30 October 2025, the court delivered judgment directing the respondents to pay salary arrears, plus costs and interest, but there has been no compliance. The orders of the court were served, and the respondent is aware of them but has refused to make payment. 3.The 1st and 3rd respondents are the designated county officers responsible for satisfying the court orders, and their failure to abide by them constitutes contempt of court. The ex parte applicant continues to suffer financial hardship due to the respondents' unlawful actions since August 2023. The orders sought should be issued. 4.In response, the respondents filed Grounds of Opposition, alleging that the application is an abuse of court process and that the orders sought are not based on any court decree. The ex parte applicant is seeking payment of amounts not underpinned by a court order, thereby rendering compulsion impossible. The amounts payable are in dispute, making it impossible for the respondents to comply. 5.Parties attended and agreed to address the application by written submissions. 6.The ex parte applicant submitted that on 30 October 2025, the court issued orders directing the respondents to implement the decree in Nairobi ELRC Petition E178 of 2024 – Jonathan Kuli Marima v Governor Kajiado County & another, in which judgment was delivered on 19 December 2024. In the judgment, the respondents were directed to pay the due salaries to the ex parte applicant, amounting to Ksh. 6,523,894.10 and costs Ksh. 191,788.40, which has not been done. 7.The respondents have been served with the orders and decree thereof. They have refused to comply, leading to this prosecution. In Republic v Principal Magistrate’s Court, City Court, Nairobi & 2 others ex parte Jack and Jill Supermarkets Ltd [2011] eKLR, the court held that any person who has knowledge of a court order and fails to comply is in contempt. 8.The respondents are thus in willful and deliberate disobedience of valid court orders. In Wireless Kenya Ltd v Minister for Information & Communication & others [2005] eKLR, the court held that it is essential to maintain the rule of law and order and to uphold the authority and dignity of the court at all times. The respondents have refused to comply with the court's directions and make payments due to the ex parte applicant. The respondents have alleged that there is no decree and the amounts are not properly calculated, yet they offer no responses. 9.The orders sought should be issued to protect the dignity of the court and access to justice. The enforcement of the court orders is part of the rule of law, as held in Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General & another [2018] eKLR. 10.The respondents submitted that the ex parte applicant has alleged contempt of court, which is not correct. In the court's original judgment, the award was for Ksh: 2,994,240, less PAYE, plus costs. The ex parte applicant has made a demand for Ksh. 6,523,894.10 using a handwritten calculation, which is inconsistent with the judgment. For the respondents to comply as directed by the court, a decree should be issued together with a Certificate of Order and a Certificate of Costs, as required under Section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act. 11.The respondents submitted that, under Order 29 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, a Certificate of Satisfaction of Order and a Certificate of Costs must be strictly made to a registrar or to the court within 21 days from the date of the subject order. In the application of a County Government, the decree holder must ensure that the Certificate of Satisfaction of Order and Certificate of Cost must be served to the accounting officer of the County. The amount subject to payment must be indicated to facilitate the settlement by the respondents. Where the designated officers fail to pay, recourse is by way of an application to the court for an order of mandamus, not by contempt of court proceedings. 12.The respondents submitted that the 1st and 3rd respondents are not their designated accounting officers under the Public Finance Management Act and, hence, lack the statutory or personal capacity to comply with or process the payments sought herein. The contempt proceedings by the ex parte applicant cannot substitute for proper judicial proceedings against the government. 13.The respondents submitted that the application seeking the committal of the respondents for alleged contempt of court fails to meet the threshold pursuant to Girima Ranching Company Limited v Maalim & another; Shikari & others; Mutitika v Baharini Farm Limited [1985] KLR; North Tetu Farmers Co. Ltd v Joseph Nderitu Wanjohi [2016] eKLR. The ex parte applicant's change of the judgment sum to one of his own cannot justify his claim that there is contempt of court. The orders sought cannot be issued, and the application should be dismissed with costs. Determination 14.The ex parte applicant has moved the court by way of a judicial review application seeking to find the respondents in contempt of court for alleged disobedience of orders issued on 30 October 2025, for failure to pay Ksh. 6,523,894.10 and the costs of Ksh. 191,788.40. 15.The respondents, in return, have admitted that a judgment was delivered on 19 December 2024, in which the ex parte applicant was awarded Ksh. 2,994,240 (less PAYE) plus interests and costs assessed at Ksh. 191,788.40. The respondents assert that the ex parte applicant has not properly moved the court, as he has not obtained the necessary certificates, but has instead opted to file contempt of court proceedings. 16.There is, therefore, a valid judgment of the court that is not contested. 17.The ex parte applicant filed these proceedings to implement the judgment through its application dated 22 July 2025 and a judgment issued on 30 October 2025 directing various payments, including Ksh. 2,994,240 (less PAYE), plus interests and costs assessed at Ksh. 191,788.40. 18.A decree thereof should be issued with a tabulation of the Ksh. 2,994,240 awarded less PAYE due. The remainder should accrue interest, and the total due should be calculated based on the costs assessed in KSh. 191,788.40. 19.The subject entity and judgment debtor is the County Government of Kajiado. As a government, following these proceedings, the ex parte applicant should obtain the Certificate of Order for Costs against the government. Such would address the exact amounts that are due to the ex parte applicant against the respondent. 20.Also, under Section 44 of the County Government Act, the accounting officers for the County Government are not the officers and persons listed in the ex parte applicant's application as the 1st and 3rd respondents. These provisions must be read together with Section 103(3) and 148(4) of the Public Finance Management Act. 21.In Githiga & 5 Others v Kiru Tea Factory Company Ltd [2023] KESC 41 (KLR), the court held that Courts possess the inherent power to enforce compliance with their lawful orders. 22.To move as herein done, seeking contempt proceedings against the respondents, before adherence to the basics for enforcement of the court orders against the entity of the County Government of Kajiado and its officers, is premature. The cited officers, namely the 1st and 3rd respondents, are not the accounting officers for the entity and government of the County Government of Kajiado. 23.Contempt of court proceedings are the ultimate remedy and relief sought by a party where a judgment debtor fails to adhere to lawful orders. For payment of the judgment sum, the correct amount must be ascertained with the issuance of the requisite Certificate from the orders that the judgment was to the effect that Ksh: 2,994,240 (less PAYE) plus interests and costs assessed at Ksh. 191,788.40 was what the court ordered. The tabulation thereof is necessary. A decree therefrom is necessary. 24.Before claiming the sum of Ksh. 6,535,894 and assessed costs Ksh. 191,788.40 a Decree thereof and the necessary Certificates must be issued by the court to confirm the amounts that the respondents must pay. 25.Application dated 17 March 2026 is thus premature. It is declined. No orders on costs. DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI, THIS 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.M. MBARŨJUDGEIn the presence of:Court Assistants: Nelson Kemboi and Catherine Makau……………………………………………… and………………….…………………………...