BACKGROUND
1. This interlocutory ruling arises within the pendency of the directions given with regard to the disposal of the substantive petition which as a matter of fact ought to have been heard and determined on the merits by now given its public interest and the economic social rights of the sugar farmers of Kenya. As at the time of the status conference, set to agree on case management protocols the Court was made aware that two applications demand of its attention which were premised as follows: First is the application by way of Chamber summons under Certificate of Urgency dated 20th day of August 2026 brought under Section 10 (4) of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act, 2015; Rule 17 of the High Court (Organization and Administration) (General) Rules, 2016; Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and all other enabling provisions of the Law) where the Interested parties seeks the following orders:
a. That the applicants' application dated 20th August 2026 be admitted for hearing during the honourable court's vacation.
b. That costs of this application be in the course.
2. The application is based on the grounds that:-
a. The court is presently on summer vacation
b. That circumstances have arisen that require that an application be made to the court for immediate temporary relief.
c. That such an application cannot be made at this time except with leave of court
d. It is in the broader interest of justice that this application be allowed.
3. In support of the application is the annexed affidavit of Raymond Olendo who deponed as follows:
a. That I am an advocate of the High Court of Kenya having the conduct of this matter hence competent to swear this affidavit.
b. That this court is presently on Summer Vacation.
c. That the application sought to be admitted for hearing during vacation seeks conservatory order of temporary injunction to be issued to restrain the Respondents and the Election Committee from conducting election of
Grower Representative to the board of the 1st Respondent slated for 5th September 2026 in contempt of the Court Orders issued on 2nd June 2026 and 24th June 2026 will render this Petition nugatory.
d. That the Interested Parties are also seeking to commit the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga, Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktaria, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barasa Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Kariithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo be found in contempt of the Court Orders issued on 2nd June 2026 and 24th June 2026.
e. That unless this Application is heard within the recess period, nothing stops the Respondents and the Election Committee from proceedings with elections and implementation of a section of law whose constitutionality is pending determination before this Honourable Court thereby rendering the petition and this court's jurisdiction otiose.
f. That it is a requirement of law that leave be granted for permission to be heard during vacation
g. That unless this matter is admitted for hearing during this vacation the application dated 20th August 2026 and the entire Petition might be rendered nugatory
h. That it is therefore imperative that this matter be placed before court during this vacation for immediate temporary relief.
4. That the above Certificate of Urgency is accompanied with Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2026 brought under Section 1A, 3A, Civil Procedure Act, 2010, Order 51 Rule of the Civil Procedure Rules Section 5 (1) of the Judicature Act, Article 40 (1) of the Constitution and all enabling provisions of law), where the 1st Interested party seeks the following orders: a. Spent.
b. That the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga, Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktari, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barack Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Karithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo be summoned before this court to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court and order issued on 24th June 2026.
c. That the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga, Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktari, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barack Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Karithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo be found to be in contempt of the Court Order issued on 24th June 2026 and be penalized for contempt of court and or be committed to jail for Six months or such period the Court may deem fit.
d. That the court to grant further orders as may be necessary for the sake of safeguarding the dignity of this honorable court and especially affirming the force of law of its orders of 24th June 2026.
5. The application is based on the following grounds:
a. That on 2nd June 2026 this Honourable Court issued the following orders: "That interim structural interdict in terms of prayer No. a and b on the impending elections which is the predominate issue in the Petition filed so as render the motion and the Petition nugatory."
b. That further to the Court Orders issued on 2nd June 2026 the Court on
24th June 2026 issued further orders as follows;
"That a declaration be and is hereby issued that status quo be maintained in so far as the implementation of the First Schedule in the Sugar Act of 2024 is concerned pending the hearing and determination of the filed petitions both at Kakamega and Vihiga High Courts respectively."
c. That the status quo prevailing on the morning of 24th June 2026 was that the growers' representative election had been stayed pending the hearing and determination of the Petition and it's that status quo that was meant to continue prevailing.
d. That all the Respondents and the Election Committee and/or their advocates, were duly and/or were brought to notice of the Contemned Order and the Election Committee vide a notice issued on same day the 24th of June 2026, indefinitely postponed the elections pending the determination of this matter.
e. That in violation of the said Court Order the Respondents, their agents and the Election Committee have sought to implement the First Schedule of the Sugar Act 2024 by scheduling grower representative elections for 5th September 2026 vide a notice issued on 7th August 2026.
f. That the Respondent, their agents and the Election Committee members are not only in violation of the Court's orders but are also in contempt of the Court's Orders issued 2nd June 2026 and confirmed on 24th June 2026.
g. That the institution of the court, the rule law and the administration of justice suffer loss of stature, integrity and the deserved respect, by the Respondents', their agents and the Election Committee members' disobedience of the court order of 24th June 2026.
h. That the terms of the Contemned Order are very clear and unambiguous, and the Respondents and/or their agents and/or legal representatives had proper and actual notice of the same after being duly served with the Order and had representation in Court on 28th April 2026 when the matter come up for hearing.
i. That there is no excuse against disobedience of a court orders, one is obliged to obey then plead an excuse later.
j. That this Court is sanctioned by law to penalize the disobedience of its orders.
k. That the conduct of the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga, Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktari, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barack Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Karithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo are subverting the authority and dignity of this Honorable Court and must be dealt with firmly so that the Court's reputation and authority is not brought into ignominy.
l. That unless the Application herein is heard during the recess period the Petition herein and the Petitions pending before Kakamega High Court being Constitutional Petitions E013 of 2026 and Kakamega
Constitutional Petitions No. E019 of 2025 will be rendered nugatory and a mere academic exercise.
m. That the Respondent and the Election Committee have intentionally and willingly disobeyed and continued to disobey the said orders delivered on 24th June 2026.
n. That unless this Application is heard within the recess period, nothing stops the Respondents and the Election Committee from proceedings with the scheduled elections to the risk of the Respondents Being in contempt of the Courts orders and rendering the Constitutional issues pending determination in the Petition nugatory and this court's jurisdiction otiose.
o. That It is in the Interest of Justice and fairness that the Application herein be urgently admitted for hearing and determination.
6. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Moses Juma Sikuta who deponed as follows:
a. That I am an adult male and a sugarcane farmer within Bungoma and of authority of my fellow farmer and or interested party herein, conversant with the matters in issue herein and of authority to swear this affidavit thus competent to depose to this affidavit.
b. That I have read and understood the Application filed and I depose to this Affidavit in Support thereof.
c. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that on 2nd June 2026 this Honourable Court issued the following orders: "That interim structural interdict in terms of prayer No. a and b on the impending elections which is the predominate issue in the Petition filed so as render the motion and the
Petition nugatory."
d. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that further to the Court Orders issued on 2nd June 2026 the Court on 24th June 2026 issued further orders as follows: "That a declaration be and is hereby issued that status quo be maintained in so far as the implementation of the First Schedule in the Sugar Act of 2024 is concerned pending the hearing and determination of the filed petitions both at Kakamega and Vihiga High Courts respectively."
e. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the status quo prevailing on the morning of 24th June 2026 was that the growers' representative election had been stayed pending the hearing and determination of the Petition and it's that status quo that was meant to continue prevailing.
f. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that all the Respondents and the Election Committee and/or their advocates, were duly and/or were brought to notice of the Contemned Order and the Election Committee vide a notice issued on same day the 24th of June 2026, indefinitely postponed the elections pending the determination of this matter.
g. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that in violation of the said Court Order the Respondents, their agents and the Election Committee have sought to implement the First Schedule of the Sugar Act 2024 by scheduling grower representative elections for 5th September 2026 vide a notice issued on 7th August 2026.
h. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the Respondent, their agents and the Election Committee members are not only in violation of the Court's orders but are also in contempt of the Court's Orders issued 2nd June 2026 and confirmed on 24th June 2026.
i. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the institution of the court, the rule law and the administration of justice suffer loss of stature, integrity and the deserved respect, by the Respondents', their agents and the Election Committee members' disobedience of the court order of 24th June 2026.
j. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the terms of the Contemned Order are very clear and unambiguous, and the Respondents and/or their agents and/or legal representatives had proper and actual notice of the same after being duly served with the Order and had representation in Court on 28th April 2026 when the matter come up for hearing.
k. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that there is no excuse against disobedience of a court orders, one is obliged to obey then plead an excuse later.
l. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that this Court is sanctioned by law to penalize the disobedience of its orders.
m. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the conduct of the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga,
Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktari, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barack Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Karithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo are subverting the authority and dignity of this Honorable Court and must be dealt with firmly so that the Court's reputation and authority is not brought into ignominy.
n. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that unless the Application herein is heard during the recess period the Petition herein and the Petitions pending before Kakamega High Court being Constitutional Petitions No. E013 of 2026 and Kakamega Constitutional Petition No. E019 of 2025 will be rendered nugatory and a mere academic exercise.
o. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the 1st Respondent has intentionally and willingly disobeyed and continued to disobey the said orders delivered on 24th June 2026.
p. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that unless this Application is heard within the recess period, nothing stops the Respondents and the Election Committee from proceedings with the scheduled elections to the risk of the Respondents being in contempt of the Courts orders.
q. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that unless this Application is heard within the recess period, nothing stops the Respondents from proceedings with elections and implementation of a section of law whose constitutionally is pending determination before this honourable Court thereby rendering the petition and this court's jurisdiction otiose.
r. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily
I believe to be sound and correct that it is in the Interest of Justice and fairness that the Application herein be urgently admitted for hearing and determination.
6. The application is strongly opposed by the following replying affidavits; first and foremost is the one dated 3rd September 2026 sworn by the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Respondent (Kenya Sugar Board), and filed by Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates. The affidavit urged as follows:
a) Context of the Affidavit: The affidavit is filed in opposition to the Applicant’s
Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2026, which seeks to cite representatives of the 1st Respondent for contempt of court regarding the scheduling of grower representative elections for 5th September 2026.
b) Legal Requirements for Contempt: The 1st Respondent contends that an allegation of contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature and requires strict proof of three essential elements: (a) the existence of a valid, clear, and unambiguous court order; (b) proof of service or actual knowledge of the order by the alleged contemnor; and (c) proof of a deliberate and willful breach of the order.
c) Absence of Willful Disobedience: The deponent avers that the decision to schedule grower representative elections for 5th September 2026 was made in good faith and was not a deliberate or willful act of disobedience of any court order.
d) Contextual Construction of Status Quo Orders: The 1st Respondent states that the status quo order granted in the Court’s Ruling delivered on 24th June 2026 must be construed in tandem with the Ruling of the High Court sitting at Kakamega in Constitutional Petition No. E013 of 2025 (Masinde v. Attorney General & Kenya Sugar Board) delivered on 15th April 2026, which set aside earlier conservatory orders halting elections to prevent economic prejudice to sugarcane farmers.
e) Elections in Non-Contested Zones: Under this contextual interpretation, the status quo order did not constitute a substantive injunction or absolute bar against conducting elections in non-contested sugar catchment areas.
f) Non-Retrospectivity of Judicial Clarification: The Court’s subsequent clarification issued on 21st August 2026-stating that the 24th June 2026 order had the effect of barring elections-demonstrates the existence of a bona fide divergent interpretation prior to that date; consequently, such clarification cannot be applied retrospectively to sustain a finding of contempt.
g) Subsequent Full Compliance: Following the Court's clarification on 21st August 2026, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development published a public notice on 2nd September 2026 officially suspending the grower representative elections scheduled for 5th September 2026, thereby demonstrating full compliance with court directives and rendering the contempt application unfounded.
h) Statutory Mandate and Public Interest: The deponent emphasizes that under the Sugar Act, 2024, the Kenya Sugar Board requires a fully constituted board—including elected grower representatives—to perform core regulatory functions, and that prolonged suspension of elections disenfranchises over 200,000 sugarcane farmers across the country.
7. In addition a further replying affidavit by the Hon. Sen Mutahi Kagwe, Cabinet Secretary - Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, the 2nd Respondent who urged as follows:
a) Origin of the Contempt Application: The applicants sought to cite and penalize the respondents for contempt, alleging that scheduling sugarcane grower representative elections for September 5, 2026, violated a court order issued on June 24, 2026, which directed that status quo be maintained regarding the implementation of the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024.
b) Misinterpretation of the Court Order: The Cabinet Secretary contends that the contempt claims stem from a misinterpretation of the June 24, 2026 order. Citing the Court of Appeal precedent in Gilgil Telcoms Industries Limited v. Nderitu, he asserts that court judgments and orders must be interpreted in context rather than mechanically. The status quo order was issued specifically in response to a grievance regarding the boundary placement of Bumula Sub-County between sugarcane catchment areas, not as a blanket prohibition on administrative elections.
c) Absence of an Express Restraining Order: Although the Applicants originally requested a specific conservatory order on May 29, 2026, to halt grower representative elections, the court did not grant that specific order in its June 24, 2026 ruling. Instead, it issued a general status quo directive regarding the First Schedule without explicitly prohibiting, suspending, or cancelling the elections.
d) Contradiction in the Applicants' Conduct: On August 8, 2026, the Applicants themselves filed an application asking the court to clarify whether the status quo order applied to the elections. The Cabinet Secretary argues that the Applicants cannot claim an order was clear and unambiguously violated while simultaneously petitioning the court to clarify its operational scope.
e) Good Faith and Timing of Clarification: All election notices and preparations were carried out in good faith prior to the court’s subsequent ruling on August 21, 2026, which formally clarified the meaning and effect of the status quo order.
f) Farmer Welfare and Public Interest Rationale: On August 5, 2026, the Ministry convened a consultative meeting with sugar farmers' representatives across five catchment areas. The representatives resolved to hold elections on September 5, 2026, to fully constitute the Kenya Sugar Board, enabling farmers' organizations to access 5% of the sugar levy allocated under Section 40(6)(f) of the Sugar Act, 2024. They also affirmed that Bumula Sub-County farmers had not been arbitrarily disenfranchised.
g) Final Prayer: The Cabinet Secretary concludes that the application is speculative, a fishing expedition, misconceived, and an abuse of court process, praying that it be dismissed in its entirety.
8. During the status conference, Legal Counsels had the opportunity to plug in on the above notice of motion for and against the remedies being sought by the Applicant in so far as contempt proceedings are concerned for the disobedience of Court orders with regard to the planning, organization and implementation of the calendar of events all tailored towards holding the elections of the representatives and/or nominees to the Sugar Board or any such positions in support of the governance of this important sector of the Kenyan economy. The other secondary issue being alluded to by the Applicant/Petitioner is on this long protracted question whether indeed in the ruling of June 24, 2026 a restraining order or temporary interdict was issued against the Respondents not to operationalize the provisions of the Sugar Act with its addendum the 1st Schedule on matters to do with elections.
Analysis and Determination with regard to the two applications
9. The subject matter on contempt application has received wide attention by the Superior Courts more so the High Court geared towards sustenance of the rule of law and the fair administration of justice. The core principles for the Court faced with adjudication under Article 50(1) of the Constitution on contempt applications falls squarely inter alia thus:
• Mandatory Obedience: Every person or state officer must obey an order given by a court of competent jurisdiction until the order is set aside, discharged, or varied.
• Three-Prong Proof Requirement: To succeed in civil contempt, the applicant must prove three clear elements:
a) The precise terms of the court order.
b) Clear knowledge or service of the order by the respondent.
c) Deliberate failure or refusal by the respondent to comply with the terms.
• Standard of Proof: Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, meaning the standard of proof required is higher than in ordinary civil cases (though willful disobedience can be inferred upon proving the initial three elements, subject to rebuttal).
• Procedural Fairness: Courts must strictly uphold natural justice, procedural fairness, and the right of the alleged contemner to a fair hearing and a personal defense opportunity.
• Statutory Notice for State Organs: Where government departments or state officers are involved, mandatory statutory notices (such as 30-day showcause notices under specific public proceedings frameworks) must be met before proceedings commence.
10. The foundation of this contempt proceedings against the Respondents are traceable to the primary decision issued by this Court on 24th June 2026 which for purposes of the parties the following declarations were made:
(a) That a declaration be and is hereby issued that status quo be maintained in so far as the implementation of the First Schedule in the Sugar Act of 2024 is concerned pending the hearing and determination of the filed petitions both at Kakamega and Vihiga High Courts respectively.
(b) That a declaration be and is hereby made that pursuant to Section 1(A), 1(B), 3 & 3(A) of the Civil Procedure Act as read with Article 50 of the Constitution on fair trial rights that a necessity has arisen to have Petition E004 of 2026 be transferred to Kakamega High Court for purposes of consolidation with the other pending petitions for hearing and determination on the merits.
(c) That a declaration be and is hereby made that the review application be and is hereby dismissed for want of merit.
(d) That a declaration be and is hereby made that all the thirteen Interested Parties have already established locus standi to litigate their interests and justiciable rights in the consolidated petitions and therefore admitted under Order 2 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
(e) That a declaration be and is hereby made that in determining the disputed issues of fact and law in the pending petitions in the event partial implementation of the schedule is undertaken by the Respondents there is likelihood of the Petitioners suffering prejudice and substantial loss which may not be quantifiable by dint of damages.
(f) That on a without prejudice basis there may be a need for the coordinate Judge to consider whether under the doctrine of necessity and expediency a proposal could be made to the Chief Justice to empanel uneven bench of Judges due to the public interest of the petitions to determine the issues.
(g) That a declaration be and is hereby made that the doctrine of res judicata and the cause of action estoppel did not find its space in so far as the currency of the pending petition is concerned.
(h) That the costs of these many interlocutory applications be in the cause and to abide the outcome of the petitions.
(i) That the Deputy Registrar High Court at Vihiga do dispatch this case docket to Kakamega High Court within 24 hours from today’s ruling. Orders accordingly.
11. Thereafter this very same Court was moved that the above ruling was vague, ambiguous and blurred with clarity particularly on the canon of status quo.
This Court exercising inherent jurisdiction ordained itself as follows on 21st August 2026:
Why status quo in so far as the First Schedule is concerned? The public in the constitutional dispensation has been cited as a fluid faction that is largely determined by the issue at hand and they run to the Courts seeking an interpretive approach of the matter and as part of the citizenry they have a vested interest in the issue of the pending elections tailored on the transformative governance of the sugar industry. It is noteworthy at the time the ruling was made by this Court and now until the Petition is heard and determined any activity in the form of an election invoking the provisions of the Sugar Act 2024 with the addendum referenced as the First Schedule shall remain temporarily injuncted pending the hearing and determination of the Petition and this was the original letter of declaration in Clause (a) and the spirit now lays bare for compliance.
12. I have carefully analyzed the concerns raised by the Petitioners in its entirety and also the replying affidavits by the Respondents. The Replying Affidavits seem to import ambiguity to the language of the Court but in so far as the interpretation is concerned from the word go in the ruling of 24th June 2026 and the further clarification which was sought there was no room for parties to navigate the meaning of words and sentences in a ruling so that they can proceed to carry out elections as provided for in the Sugar Act 2024 and its Addendum First Schedule.
13. The grievance by the Petitioners is that the Respondents have been holding meetings with other stakeholders with a view to proceed with elections within the terms provided for in the First Schedule. Essentially, this Court is being told that the Respondents jointly and severally have defied the authority and the dignity of Court which conduct ought to be punished because it interferes with administration of justice. Initially within this legal system, such proceedings were governed by the Contempt of Court Act No. 46 of 2016 which was subsequently declared invalid and unconstitutional for lack of public participation.
14. As a consequence of which various Superior Courts particularly the High Court together with courts of equal status have laid down principles upon which judicial discretion is exercised for contempt proceedings and subsequent sanctions to be imposed at that very same Court. Thus in Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v The National Land Commission & 2 Others, Nairobi (HC) Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 443 of 2017 the High Court held as follows:
‘‘It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove (i) the terms of the order, (ii) Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent, (iii). Fai
[...truncated]
1. This interlocutory ruling arises within the pendency of the directions given with regard to the disposal of the substantive petition which as a matter of fact ought to have been heard and determined on the merits by now given its public interest and the economic social rights of the sugar farmers of Kenya. As at the time of the status conference, set to agree on case management protocols the Court was made aware that two applications demand of its attention which were premised as follows: First is the application by way of Chamber summons under Certificate of Urgency dated 20th day of August 2026 brought under Section 10 (4) of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act, 2015; Rule 17 of the High Court (Organization and Administration) (General) Rules, 2016; Inherent Jurisdiction of this Honourable Court and all other enabling provisions of the Law) where the Interested parties seeks the following orders:
a. That the applicants' application dated 20th August 2026 be admitted for hearing during the honourable court's vacation.
b. That costs of this application be in the course.
2. The application is based on the grounds that:-
a. The court is presently on summer vacation
b. That circumstances have arisen that require that an application be made to the court for immediate temporary relief.
c. That such an application cannot be made at this time except with leave of court
d. It is in the broader interest of justice that this application be allowed.
3. In support of the application is the annexed affidavit of Raymond Olendo who deponed as follows:
a. That I am an advocate of the High Court of Kenya having the conduct of this matter hence competent to swear this affidavit.
b. That this court is presently on Summer Vacation.
c. That the application sought to be admitted for hearing during vacation seeks conservatory order of temporary injunction to be issued to restrain the Respondents and the Election Committee from conducting election of
Grower Representative to the board of the 1st Respondent slated for 5th September 2026 in contempt of the Court Orders issued on 2nd June 2026 and 24th June 2026 will render this Petition nugatory.
d. That the Interested Parties are also seeking to commit the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga, Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktaria, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barasa Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Kariithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo be found in contempt of the Court Orders issued on 2nd June 2026 and 24th June 2026.
e. That unless this Application is heard within the recess period, nothing stops the Respondents and the Election Committee from proceedings with elections and implementation of a section of law whose constitutionality is pending determination before this Honourable Court thereby rendering the petition and this court's jurisdiction otiose.
f. That it is a requirement of law that leave be granted for permission to be heard during vacation
g. That unless this matter is admitted for hearing during this vacation the application dated 20th August 2026 and the entire Petition might be rendered nugatory
h. That it is therefore imperative that this matter be placed before court during this vacation for immediate temporary relief.
4. That the above Certificate of Urgency is accompanied with Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2026 brought under Section 1A, 3A, Civil Procedure Act, 2010, Order 51 Rule of the Civil Procedure Rules Section 5 (1) of the Judicature Act, Article 40 (1) of the Constitution and all enabling provisions of law), where the 1st Interested party seeks the following orders: a. Spent.
b. That the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga, Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktari, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barack Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Karithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo be summoned before this court to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court and order issued on 24th June 2026.
c. That the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga, Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktari, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barack Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Karithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo be found to be in contempt of the Court Order issued on 24th June 2026 and be penalized for contempt of court and or be committed to jail for Six months or such period the Court may deem fit.
d. That the court to grant further orders as may be necessary for the sake of safeguarding the dignity of this honorable court and especially affirming the force of law of its orders of 24th June 2026.
5. The application is based on the following grounds:
a. That on 2nd June 2026 this Honourable Court issued the following orders: "That interim structural interdict in terms of prayer No. a and b on the impending elections which is the predominate issue in the Petition filed so as render the motion and the Petition nugatory."
b. That further to the Court Orders issued on 2nd June 2026 the Court on
24th June 2026 issued further orders as follows;
"That a declaration be and is hereby issued that status quo be maintained in so far as the implementation of the First Schedule in the Sugar Act of 2024 is concerned pending the hearing and determination of the filed petitions both at Kakamega and Vihiga High Courts respectively."
c. That the status quo prevailing on the morning of 24th June 2026 was that the growers' representative election had been stayed pending the hearing and determination of the Petition and it's that status quo that was meant to continue prevailing.
d. That all the Respondents and the Election Committee and/or their advocates, were duly and/or were brought to notice of the Contemned Order and the Election Committee vide a notice issued on same day the 24th of June 2026, indefinitely postponed the elections pending the determination of this matter.
e. That in violation of the said Court Order the Respondents, their agents and the Election Committee have sought to implement the First Schedule of the Sugar Act 2024 by scheduling grower representative elections for 5th September 2026 vide a notice issued on 7th August 2026.
f. That the Respondent, their agents and the Election Committee members are not only in violation of the Court's orders but are also in contempt of the Court's Orders issued 2nd June 2026 and confirmed on 24th June 2026.
g. That the institution of the court, the rule law and the administration of justice suffer loss of stature, integrity and the deserved respect, by the Respondents', their agents and the Election Committee members' disobedience of the court order of 24th June 2026.
h. That the terms of the Contemned Order are very clear and unambiguous, and the Respondents and/or their agents and/or legal representatives had proper and actual notice of the same after being duly served with the Order and had representation in Court on 28th April 2026 when the matter come up for hearing.
i. That there is no excuse against disobedience of a court orders, one is obliged to obey then plead an excuse later.
j. That this Court is sanctioned by law to penalize the disobedience of its orders.
k. That the conduct of the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga, Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktari, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barack Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Karithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo are subverting the authority and dignity of this Honorable Court and must be dealt with firmly so that the Court's reputation and authority is not brought into ignominy.
l. That unless the Application herein is heard during the recess period the Petition herein and the Petitions pending before Kakamega High Court being Constitutional Petitions E013 of 2026 and Kakamega
Constitutional Petitions No. E019 of 2025 will be rendered nugatory and a mere academic exercise.
m. That the Respondent and the Election Committee have intentionally and willingly disobeyed and continued to disobey the said orders delivered on 24th June 2026.
n. That unless this Application is heard within the recess period, nothing stops the Respondents and the Election Committee from proceedings with the scheduled elections to the risk of the Respondents Being in contempt of the Courts orders and rendering the Constitutional issues pending determination in the Petition nugatory and this court's jurisdiction otiose.
o. That It is in the Interest of Justice and fairness that the Application herein be urgently admitted for hearing and determination.
6. The application is supported by the annexed affidavit of Moses Juma Sikuta who deponed as follows:
a. That I am an adult male and a sugarcane farmer within Bungoma and of authority of my fellow farmer and or interested party herein, conversant with the matters in issue herein and of authority to swear this affidavit thus competent to depose to this affidavit.
b. That I have read and understood the Application filed and I depose to this Affidavit in Support thereof.
c. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that on 2nd June 2026 this Honourable Court issued the following orders: "That interim structural interdict in terms of prayer No. a and b on the impending elections which is the predominate issue in the Petition filed so as render the motion and the
Petition nugatory."
d. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that further to the Court Orders issued on 2nd June 2026 the Court on 24th June 2026 issued further orders as follows: "That a declaration be and is hereby issued that status quo be maintained in so far as the implementation of the First Schedule in the Sugar Act of 2024 is concerned pending the hearing and determination of the filed petitions both at Kakamega and Vihiga High Courts respectively."
e. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the status quo prevailing on the morning of 24th June 2026 was that the growers' representative election had been stayed pending the hearing and determination of the Petition and it's that status quo that was meant to continue prevailing.
f. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that all the Respondents and the Election Committee and/or their advocates, were duly and/or were brought to notice of the Contemned Order and the Election Committee vide a notice issued on same day the 24th of June 2026, indefinitely postponed the elections pending the determination of this matter.
g. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that in violation of the said Court Order the Respondents, their agents and the Election Committee have sought to implement the First Schedule of the Sugar Act 2024 by scheduling grower representative elections for 5th September 2026 vide a notice issued on 7th August 2026.
h. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the Respondent, their agents and the Election Committee members are not only in violation of the Court's orders but are also in contempt of the Court's Orders issued 2nd June 2026 and confirmed on 24th June 2026.
i. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the institution of the court, the rule law and the administration of justice suffer loss of stature, integrity and the deserved respect, by the Respondents', their agents and the Election Committee members' disobedience of the court order of 24th June 2026.
j. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the terms of the Contemned Order are very clear and unambiguous, and the Respondents and/or their agents and/or legal representatives had proper and actual notice of the same after being duly served with the Order and had representation in Court on 28th April 2026 when the matter come up for hearing.
k. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that there is no excuse against disobedience of a court orders, one is obliged to obey then plead an excuse later.
l. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that this Court is sanctioned by law to penalize the disobedience of its orders.
m. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the conduct of the 1st Respondent, its Chief Executive Officer Mr. Jude Chesire, The Election Committee Chairman Mr. H. R. Khator, Committee members Mr. Kennedy Anahinga,
Mr. Ian Leteipan, Ms. Kanini Nthiga, Mr. James Kimutai, Mr. Samuel Kemboi, Mr. Gideon Balang' Ms. Nancy Koros, Ms. Carolyne Mage, Mr. Benson Loktari, Ms. Margaret Ngaruiya, Ms. Patricia Njeru, Mr. Carilus Nyabute, Mr. Joseph K. Too, Prof. Barack Otieno Abonyo, Mr. Godness Okelo Oucho, Mr. Patrick Karithi, Dr. Noah Wawire and Mr. Andrew Osodo are subverting the authority and dignity of this Honorable Court and must be dealt with firmly so that the Court's reputation and authority is not brought into ignominy.
n. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that unless the Application herein is heard during the recess period the Petition herein and the Petitions pending before Kakamega High Court being Constitutional Petitions No. E013 of 2026 and Kakamega Constitutional Petition No. E019 of 2025 will be rendered nugatory and a mere academic exercise.
o. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that the 1st Respondent has intentionally and willingly disobeyed and continued to disobey the said orders delivered on 24th June 2026.
p. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that unless this Application is heard within the recess period, nothing stops the Respondents and the Election Committee from proceedings with the scheduled elections to the risk of the Respondents being in contempt of the Courts orders.
q. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily I believe to be sound and correct that unless this Application is heard within the recess period, nothing stops the Respondents from proceedings with elections and implementation of a section of law whose constitutionally is pending determination before this honourable Court thereby rendering the petition and this court's jurisdiction otiose.
r. That I have been advised by my advocate on record which advice verily
I believe to be sound and correct that it is in the Interest of Justice and fairness that the Application herein be urgently admitted for hearing and determination.
6. The application is strongly opposed by the following replying affidavits; first and foremost is the one dated 3rd September 2026 sworn by the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Respondent (Kenya Sugar Board), and filed by Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates. The affidavit urged as follows:
a) Context of the Affidavit: The affidavit is filed in opposition to the Applicant’s
Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2026, which seeks to cite representatives of the 1st Respondent for contempt of court regarding the scheduling of grower representative elections for 5th September 2026.
b) Legal Requirements for Contempt: The 1st Respondent contends that an allegation of contempt of court is quasi-criminal in nature and requires strict proof of three essential elements: (a) the existence of a valid, clear, and unambiguous court order; (b) proof of service or actual knowledge of the order by the alleged contemnor; and (c) proof of a deliberate and willful breach of the order.
c) Absence of Willful Disobedience: The deponent avers that the decision to schedule grower representative elections for 5th September 2026 was made in good faith and was not a deliberate or willful act of disobedience of any court order.
d) Contextual Construction of Status Quo Orders: The 1st Respondent states that the status quo order granted in the Court’s Ruling delivered on 24th June 2026 must be construed in tandem with the Ruling of the High Court sitting at Kakamega in Constitutional Petition No. E013 of 2025 (Masinde v. Attorney General & Kenya Sugar Board) delivered on 15th April 2026, which set aside earlier conservatory orders halting elections to prevent economic prejudice to sugarcane farmers.
e) Elections in Non-Contested Zones: Under this contextual interpretation, the status quo order did not constitute a substantive injunction or absolute bar against conducting elections in non-contested sugar catchment areas.
f) Non-Retrospectivity of Judicial Clarification: The Court’s subsequent clarification issued on 21st August 2026-stating that the 24th June 2026 order had the effect of barring elections-demonstrates the existence of a bona fide divergent interpretation prior to that date; consequently, such clarification cannot be applied retrospectively to sustain a finding of contempt.
g) Subsequent Full Compliance: Following the Court's clarification on 21st August 2026, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development published a public notice on 2nd September 2026 officially suspending the grower representative elections scheduled for 5th September 2026, thereby demonstrating full compliance with court directives and rendering the contempt application unfounded.
h) Statutory Mandate and Public Interest: The deponent emphasizes that under the Sugar Act, 2024, the Kenya Sugar Board requires a fully constituted board—including elected grower representatives—to perform core regulatory functions, and that prolonged suspension of elections disenfranchises over 200,000 sugarcane farmers across the country.
7. In addition a further replying affidavit by the Hon. Sen Mutahi Kagwe, Cabinet Secretary - Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development, the 2nd Respondent who urged as follows:
a) Origin of the Contempt Application: The applicants sought to cite and penalize the respondents for contempt, alleging that scheduling sugarcane grower representative elections for September 5, 2026, violated a court order issued on June 24, 2026, which directed that status quo be maintained regarding the implementation of the First Schedule of the Sugar Act, 2024.
b) Misinterpretation of the Court Order: The Cabinet Secretary contends that the contempt claims stem from a misinterpretation of the June 24, 2026 order. Citing the Court of Appeal precedent in Gilgil Telcoms Industries Limited v. Nderitu, he asserts that court judgments and orders must be interpreted in context rather than mechanically. The status quo order was issued specifically in response to a grievance regarding the boundary placement of Bumula Sub-County between sugarcane catchment areas, not as a blanket prohibition on administrative elections.
c) Absence of an Express Restraining Order: Although the Applicants originally requested a specific conservatory order on May 29, 2026, to halt grower representative elections, the court did not grant that specific order in its June 24, 2026 ruling. Instead, it issued a general status quo directive regarding the First Schedule without explicitly prohibiting, suspending, or cancelling the elections.
d) Contradiction in the Applicants' Conduct: On August 8, 2026, the Applicants themselves filed an application asking the court to clarify whether the status quo order applied to the elections. The Cabinet Secretary argues that the Applicants cannot claim an order was clear and unambiguously violated while simultaneously petitioning the court to clarify its operational scope.
e) Good Faith and Timing of Clarification: All election notices and preparations were carried out in good faith prior to the court’s subsequent ruling on August 21, 2026, which formally clarified the meaning and effect of the status quo order.
f) Farmer Welfare and Public Interest Rationale: On August 5, 2026, the Ministry convened a consultative meeting with sugar farmers' representatives across five catchment areas. The representatives resolved to hold elections on September 5, 2026, to fully constitute the Kenya Sugar Board, enabling farmers' organizations to access 5% of the sugar levy allocated under Section 40(6)(f) of the Sugar Act, 2024. They also affirmed that Bumula Sub-County farmers had not been arbitrarily disenfranchised.
g) Final Prayer: The Cabinet Secretary concludes that the application is speculative, a fishing expedition, misconceived, and an abuse of court process, praying that it be dismissed in its entirety.
8. During the status conference, Legal Counsels had the opportunity to plug in on the above notice of motion for and against the remedies being sought by the Applicant in so far as contempt proceedings are concerned for the disobedience of Court orders with regard to the planning, organization and implementation of the calendar of events all tailored towards holding the elections of the representatives and/or nominees to the Sugar Board or any such positions in support of the governance of this important sector of the Kenyan economy. The other secondary issue being alluded to by the Applicant/Petitioner is on this long protracted question whether indeed in the ruling of June 24, 2026 a restraining order or temporary interdict was issued against the Respondents not to operationalize the provisions of the Sugar Act with its addendum the 1st Schedule on matters to do with elections.
Analysis and Determination with regard to the two applications
9. The subject matter on contempt application has received wide attention by the Superior Courts more so the High Court geared towards sustenance of the rule of law and the fair administration of justice. The core principles for the Court faced with adjudication under Article 50(1) of the Constitution on contempt applications falls squarely inter alia thus:
• Mandatory Obedience: Every person or state officer must obey an order given by a court of competent jurisdiction until the order is set aside, discharged, or varied.
• Three-Prong Proof Requirement: To succeed in civil contempt, the applicant must prove three clear elements:
a) The precise terms of the court order.
b) Clear knowledge or service of the order by the respondent.
c) Deliberate failure or refusal by the respondent to comply with the terms.
• Standard of Proof: Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, meaning the standard of proof required is higher than in ordinary civil cases (though willful disobedience can be inferred upon proving the initial three elements, subject to rebuttal).
• Procedural Fairness: Courts must strictly uphold natural justice, procedural fairness, and the right of the alleged contemner to a fair hearing and a personal defense opportunity.
• Statutory Notice for State Organs: Where government departments or state officers are involved, mandatory statutory notices (such as 30-day showcause notices under specific public proceedings frameworks) must be met before proceedings commence.
10. The foundation of this contempt proceedings against the Respondents are traceable to the primary decision issued by this Court on 24th June 2026 which for purposes of the parties the following declarations were made:
(a) That a declaration be and is hereby issued that status quo be maintained in so far as the implementation of the First Schedule in the Sugar Act of 2024 is concerned pending the hearing and determination of the filed petitions both at Kakamega and Vihiga High Courts respectively.
(b) That a declaration be and is hereby made that pursuant to Section 1(A), 1(B), 3 & 3(A) of the Civil Procedure Act as read with Article 50 of the Constitution on fair trial rights that a necessity has arisen to have Petition E004 of 2026 be transferred to Kakamega High Court for purposes of consolidation with the other pending petitions for hearing and determination on the merits.
(c) That a declaration be and is hereby made that the review application be and is hereby dismissed for want of merit.
(d) That a declaration be and is hereby made that all the thirteen Interested Parties have already established locus standi to litigate their interests and justiciable rights in the consolidated petitions and therefore admitted under Order 2 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
(e) That a declaration be and is hereby made that in determining the disputed issues of fact and law in the pending petitions in the event partial implementation of the schedule is undertaken by the Respondents there is likelihood of the Petitioners suffering prejudice and substantial loss which may not be quantifiable by dint of damages.
(f) That on a without prejudice basis there may be a need for the coordinate Judge to consider whether under the doctrine of necessity and expediency a proposal could be made to the Chief Justice to empanel uneven bench of Judges due to the public interest of the petitions to determine the issues.
(g) That a declaration be and is hereby made that the doctrine of res judicata and the cause of action estoppel did not find its space in so far as the currency of the pending petition is concerned.
(h) That the costs of these many interlocutory applications be in the cause and to abide the outcome of the petitions.
(i) That the Deputy Registrar High Court at Vihiga do dispatch this case docket to Kakamega High Court within 24 hours from today’s ruling. Orders accordingly.
11. Thereafter this very same Court was moved that the above ruling was vague, ambiguous and blurred with clarity particularly on the canon of status quo.
This Court exercising inherent jurisdiction ordained itself as follows on 21st August 2026:
Why status quo in so far as the First Schedule is concerned? The public in the constitutional dispensation has been cited as a fluid faction that is largely determined by the issue at hand and they run to the Courts seeking an interpretive approach of the matter and as part of the citizenry they have a vested interest in the issue of the pending elections tailored on the transformative governance of the sugar industry. It is noteworthy at the time the ruling was made by this Court and now until the Petition is heard and determined any activity in the form of an election invoking the provisions of the Sugar Act 2024 with the addendum referenced as the First Schedule shall remain temporarily injuncted pending the hearing and determination of the Petition and this was the original letter of declaration in Clause (a) and the spirit now lays bare for compliance.
12. I have carefully analyzed the concerns raised by the Petitioners in its entirety and also the replying affidavits by the Respondents. The Replying Affidavits seem to import ambiguity to the language of the Court but in so far as the interpretation is concerned from the word go in the ruling of 24th June 2026 and the further clarification which was sought there was no room for parties to navigate the meaning of words and sentences in a ruling so that they can proceed to carry out elections as provided for in the Sugar Act 2024 and its Addendum First Schedule.
13. The grievance by the Petitioners is that the Respondents have been holding meetings with other stakeholders with a view to proceed with elections within the terms provided for in the First Schedule. Essentially, this Court is being told that the Respondents jointly and severally have defied the authority and the dignity of Court which conduct ought to be punished because it interferes with administration of justice. Initially within this legal system, such proceedings were governed by the Contempt of Court Act No. 46 of 2016 which was subsequently declared invalid and unconstitutional for lack of public participation.
14. As a consequence of which various Superior Courts particularly the High Court together with courts of equal status have laid down principles upon which judicial discretion is exercised for contempt proceedings and subsequent sanctions to be imposed at that very same Court. Thus in Samuel M. N. Mweru & Others v The National Land Commission & 2 Others, Nairobi (HC) Miscellaneous Civil Application No. 443 of 2017 the High Court held as follows:
‘‘It is an established principle of law that in order to succeed in civil contempt proceedings, the applicant has to prove (i) the terms of the order, (ii) Knowledge of these terms by the Respondent, (iii). Fai
[...truncated]