https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/1442

Ayugi v Amondi & 3 others (Judicial Review E026 of 2024) [2026] KEELRC 1442 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELRC 1442 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Employment and Labour Relations Court at Kisumu Judicial Review E026 of 2024 Nzioki wa Makau, J May 26, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS FOR ORDERS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AND IN THE MATTER OF STEPHEN ONYANGO AYUGI AND IN THE MATTER OF THE GOVERNMENT OF KENYA AND IN THE MATTER OF CLAIM NO. 267 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT AND THE RULES THEREOF AND IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLES 1,2,3 (1), 10, 12(1), 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 (1) & (3), 43, 47(1), 48, 160(1), 165 (3) (B) AND 258 (1) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND IN THE MATTER OF RULES 11, 12, 13, 20 AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION AND PROTECTION OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE INDIVIDUAL HIGH COURT AND PROCEDURE RULES 2006 Between Stephen Onyango Ayugi Applicant and Inspector Aggrey Amondi 1st Respondent Commissioner Of Police 2nd Respondent The Permanent SecretaryOffice Of The President 3rd Respondent Attorney General 4th Respondent Ruling 1.Before the Court for determination is the Applicant's application dated 11th June 2025 seeking the following orders:i.Spentii.That the Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicant to cite Inspector Aggrey Amondi, Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and the Principal Secretary in the State Department for Internal Security and National Administration Raymond Omollo for contempt of court for failure to pay Kshs. 7,232,748.85 to the Applicant.iii.That this Court be pleased to commit to civil jail Inspector Aggrey Amondi, Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and the Principal Secretary in the State Department for Internal Security and National Administration Raymond Omollo for contempt of court for failure to pay Kshs. 7,232,748.85 to the Applicant.iv.That in the alternative the Court be pleased to order the attachment and sequestration of properties belonging to Inspector Aggrey Amondi, Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and the Principal Secretary in the State Department for Internal Security and National Administration Raymond Omollo in satisfaction of the decretal amount of Kshs. 7,232,748.85v.Costs of and incidental to this Application together with interests and any other order that this Honourable Court deems fit and just to grant in the circumstances. 2.The application is expressed to be supported by the affidavit of James Aggrey Mwamu SC. However, the affidavit on record is sworn by the Applicant, Mr. Stephen Onyango Oyugi. The application is principally premised on the contention that despite this Court issuing an order of mandamus on 26th March 2025 directing the Respondents to pay the Applicant the sum of Kshs. 7,232,748.85, the Respondents have neglected and/or refused to comply with the said order. The Applicant avers that the Respondents were duly served with the Certificate of Order against the Government as well as several reminders demanding settlement of the decretal amount, but they have nevertheless persisted in their default. He therefore contends that the application is merited and ought to be allowed. 3.The application is unopposed. Pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 20th April 2026, the Applicant filed written submissions. Applicant's Submissions 4.In support of the application, the Applicant identifies the following issues for determination: whether a valid order of mandamus exists and is binding upon the Respondents; whether the Respondents had knowledge of the order; and whether the Respondents' conduct amounts to wilful disobedience warranting contempt sanctions. 5.On the first issue, the Applicant submits that it is undisputed that this Court issued an order compelling the Respondents to pay him the sum of Kshs. 7,232,748.85. He contends that once judgment is entered, a decree and Certificate of Order against the Government are issued, and no stay is in force, the Respondents become statutorily obligated to satisfy the decree. In support of this position, reliance is placed on Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior & another; Wang'ombe (Ex parte) [2024] KEHC 4336 (KLR), where the Court held that an order of mandamus properly issues to compel settlement of a decree against the Government once the requirements of section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act have been complied with. 6.On the second issue, the Applicant submits that the Certificate of Order against the Government, the order of mandamus and the certificate of costs were duly served upon the Respondents, as evinced by the affidavits of service on record. He asserts that having knowledge of the said orders, the Respondents' continued refusal to comply amounts to actionable contempt of court. In this regard, reliance is placed on Republic v Nairobi City County Government & 5 others; KTK Advocates (Ex parte) [2024] KEHC 15342 (KLR). The Applicant further submits that the Respondents' prolonged failure to comply, without any lawful justification, demonstrates deliberate disobedience and warrants the imposition of personal sanctions against the accounting officers. For this proposition, reliance is also placed on Republic v Wajir County Government CECM Finance & others; Galeyr Trading Company Limited (Ex parte) [2025] KEHC 10249 (KLR). 7.With regard to the personal responsibility of the officials named in the application, the Applicant submits that although orders of mandamus issue against public officers in their official capacities, liability for contempt attaches personally to the office holders who fail to comply with such orders. He contends that contempt is committed not by the office itself, but by the individual office holder who, despite possessing the authority and responsibility to act, deliberately declines to do so. Reliance is again placed on Republic v Nairobi City County Government & 5 others; KTK Advocates (Ex parte) [2024] KEHC 15342 (KLR), where the Court emphasized that failure by the relevant public officer to comply with an order of mandamus exposes that officer to contempt proceedings notwithstanding that the decretal sums are payable from public funds. 8.Further reliance is placed on Republic v Wajir County Government CECM Finance & others; Galeyr Trading Company Limited (Ex parte) [2025] KEHC 10249 (KLR), in which the Court underscored that persistent non-compliance with an order of mandamus justifies personal sanctions, including committal to civil jail, and further held that budgetary constraints and internal administrative processes cannot override court orders. Additionally, the Applicant invokes section 36 of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act, which affirms the power of superior courts to punish for contempt. He therefore urges the Court to allow the application in order to uphold the authority and dignity of the Court. Disposition 9.The Applicant seeks a slew of reliefs. Key amongst them is the grant of leave to the Applicant to cite Inspector Aggrey Amondi, Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and the Principal Secretary in the State Department for Internal Security and National Administration Raymond Omollo for contempt of court for failure to pay Kshs. 7,232,748.85 due to the Applicant. This is asserted to flow from the order of mandamus issued herein compelling the National Police Service to seek the payment of the sum of Kshs. 7,232,748.85. In the case of Republic v Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior & another; Wang'ombe (Ex parte) (supra), the Court held that an order of mandamus properly issues to compel settlement of a decree against the Government once the requirements of section 21 of the Government Proceedings Act have been complied with. In the case of the Applicant, the order of mandamus did properly issue since there was a decree that was to be settled by the Government, in this case the National Police Service through the Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government. 10.Contempt of Court is defined by Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, as follows: The act or state of despising; the conduct of being despised. Conduct that defies the authority or dignity of a court or legislature. Why do Courts have the power to punish for contempt? In a just and law-abiding society, the power to punish for contempt is calculated to ensure the compliance with the orders of the Court. If the courts cannot ensure the observance and respect of the due process of the law, the dignity and authority of the court will be eroded. One of the hallmarks of an impartial system of justice is one where there is equality before the law where executive fiat and flagrant disobedience of court orders is curtailed by the imposition of sanctions so as to preserve and maintain public confidence in the administration of justice as administered by courts in the land. In the case of Kenya, the superior courts have the power to punish for contempt. Additionally, it is worth noting that where a public official owes a duty to act, that responsibility comes with heavy sanctions should the public official decline to act as directed by a court. This power must be exercised with great restraint and to boot, sparingly and ought only be deployed after profound introspection. The reason is to ensure that there is no room for abuse or misuse of the great power to punish for contempt. Ordinarily, once a judgment has been entered in any suit in favour of one party against another and thereafter a decree extracted, the successful litigant is entitled to execute the decree for the decretal amount immediately. In cases where the Government is the party on the receiving end of the decree, the government does not enjoy any special privileges with regards to its liability to pay except in the mode and manner of execution of the decree. Unlike in other litigants when a decree for the payment of money or costs is issued against the Government, the said decree can only be enforced by way of an order of mandamus compelling the accounting officer in the relevant ministry to pay the decretal amount. The certificate of order is a part of this chain of execution. The Court is satisfied that the Applicant who obtained a certificate of order and sought payment numerous times before approaching the Court, has made out a case for the citation for contempt of the following subjects for failure to pay Kshs. 7,232,748.85 due to the Applicant:(1)Inspector Aggrey Amondi,(2)Inspector General of Police Douglas Kanja and the(3)Principal Secretary in the State Department for Internal Security and National Administration Raymond Omollo. 11.Summons are to issue for the Personal appearance of the 3 adjudged contemnors for mitigation and possible sentencing on 24th June 2026 at 9.00am in Kisumu at the Employment and Labour Relations Court No. 1. The 3 alleged contemnors must attend court as directed above without fail or excuse.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KISUMU THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026NZIOKI WA MAKAU, MCIArb.JUDGE