REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. E008 OF 2023
ISAAC KABERIA...............................................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
WILLIAM EKAI...................................................................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
LORE LOKITAUNG LOKORITADARA...................................................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
MEHADEG..........................................................................................................................4TH PLAINTIFF
DRILL FOR LIFE, NEHEMIAH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED......................................................5TH PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
MICHAEL PEIKAI EKWEE..........................................................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MOSES KIPLEL KISORIO, JOHNSTONE UTALY LIVECHI, CHRISTOPHER LOKENO SIOKAN (Sued on behalf of Christ is the Way Ministries) ...........................................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS
WILLIAM EMASE EKOUMA.....................................................................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By the Notice of Motion dated the 16.7.2025, the Applicants /decree-holders have prayed to the court in the main that the respondent/judgment debtors; MICHAEL PEIKAI EKWEE, MOSES KIPLEL KISORIO, JOHNSTONE UTALY LIVECHI, CHRISTOPHER LOKENO and WILLIAM EMASE EKOUMA be summoned before Honourable Court to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for blatantly failing to comply with the court orders issued by Honourable court on 7th July 2025. It is then prayed that on failing to show necessary cause, MICHAEL PEIKAI EKWEE, MOSES KIPLEL KISORIO, JOHNSTONE UTALY LIVECHI, CHRISTOPHER LOKENO SIOKAN and WILLIAM EMASE EKOUMA be condemned to pay a fine, be committed to civil jail for a maximum period of six (6) months or both, for contempt/disobedience of orders issued by Honourable court on 7th July 2025.
2. The application is premised on the grounds that; The Honorable Court pronounced itself with finality in its judgment dated 7 th July 2025, read in open Court in presence of the Plaintiffs, the 1 st Defendant and the Counsel for all the Defendants; the Plaintiffs have at all material times, since the outset of this dispute been keen to Honor the Orders of the Court, and with the pronouncements of the Court, it was the Plaintiff’s hope that the 1st Defendant would comply without much push and pull; the judgment of the Court has neither been acted upon nor honoured by the Respondents, despite Court Orders generally carrying a penal notice for non-compliance and notwithstanding the numerous correspondence shared by Counsel for the Applicant with the Respondent’s Counsel; the Plaintiffs have written to the Court with a view to obtaining a decree for purposes of execution albeit unsuccessfully yet the judgment obtained does not suffice for the Officer Commanding Station at Lodwar to supervise the enforcement as it is; it is trite law that the disobedience of a court order is fundamental to the administration of justice and the rule of law; for a party who obtains an order from the court to be certain that the order will be obeyed by those who it is
directed to and that the orders are not deemed mere suggestions and as such, once issued binds all and sundry, the mighty and the lowly equally without exception and lastly that unless the Respondents are compelled to comply, the Applicants are apprehensive that they have no another way to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court as there exists no other way of enforcing the said orders unless the orders sought herein are granted hence it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought herein be granted. Those facts were reiterated in the Affidavit of support.
3. When served with the Replying Affidavit, the applicant filed a Further Affidavit whose gist was that despite the court’s directions on a handover date, the respondent failed to attend, gave two different proposed dates but never attended as proposed hence no handover took place.
4. On the contention that no formal order with a penal notice was served upon the respondent, the applicants contend that the respondents were in court in person and by counsel and have additionally filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal and would not have done so had they not been aware of the judgment and its terms.
5. The application was opposed on the strength of the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 1 st defendant for himself. The gist of that affidavit is that there has not been the demonstration and satisfaction of the law that the terms of the order be served, Knowledge of the terms by the Respondent and failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order be demonstrated by the applicant. The deponent however concedes to have been al the time aware of the judgment but maintains that he was never served with the order he is alleged to be in contempt of. He adds that the counsel has advised him that he cannot be in contempt before formal service. He then adds that he had set up plans to handover during the month of August, two things happened; he fell ill and was equally advised that the decree extracted was erroneous just as the judgment was not clear of who to hand over to. He asserts having brought to the attention of the applicants the contradictions in the judgment to the applicants with the hope that he would be indulged but the applicants instead chose to pursue the misconceived application. He maintains that the application is misconceived, ill-advised and a candidate for dismissal.
6. Both sides have filed submissions taking good time to address the law on contempt. While the applicants take the view that there is demonstrated willful disregard of the court order in the judgment, the respondents are of the view that the application is unmerited for failure to meet the requirements of applications of its nature.
7. The court has had the benefit of reading the material availed in line with the court records and discerns the only question for determination to be whether the thresholds for grant of orders of contempt have been met.
8. It is to court trite that every person, to whom an order of the court gives an obligation to meet the terms has the unqualified, unwavering and singular duty to comply with the same [1] . The duty is so imposing and mandatory that even when in doubt of how to comply, the exact expectation of the order or even as to what extent it is reasonable, the person obligated has the duty to approach the court for interpretation of what may be unclear or ambiguous to him.
9. The Supreme Court in this country has reiterated the duty and need to comply with court order, with finality of settling the law when, in Mate & another v Wambora & another [2017] KESC 1 (KLR) the court said:
“Be it restated that the court’s word is the people’s solemn edict calling for obedience; but it is precisely the sanctity of that word, that dictates utmost care, focus and assiduity, in the judge’s undertaking.”
10. In this matter, the dispute was about the control of what both sides call the Turkana mission and its assets. The court resolved that dispute and directed that the property remain under the control of the recognized leadership. In its words, the court said: -
The court respects the wishes of the two sides and declare that the parcel or piece of land at Narewa and the motor vehicle Registration number KBY 989G is the property of the ministry and shall be maintained and held as such by the Christ Dominion Church, on behalf of the recognised leadership of the ministry.
11. After the judgment was delivered, parties and counsel attended court on 01.08.2025 and after respective counsel addressed the court, the court directed the respondents to comply in the following terms:
“…being aware that the parties may still belong to the same faith and calling, the court directs as follows:
The 2 nd defendant and his codefendants shall proceed to the site of the premises and peacefully handover the keys and the property therein, including the ignition keys to motor vehicle Reg No. KBY989G, on the 4.8.2025 at 10am
If there shall be a default to comply, the plaintiff shall have the liberty to seek the assistance of the local OCS, to break open the premises and take possession.”
12. It is clear to court that if the respondents were ever in doubt of their obligations to the court order, the clarification was made in the presence of another counsel in the case. What to do and when to do it were all set out in the orders reproduced above. It is to court an outright disobedience when more than four months later no step has been taken by the judgment debtor to discharge the obligation.
13. Based on the materials availed and the record of the court, particularly the proceeding of 01.08.2025, the court find that the respondents were well aware of their obligation to the judgment, had all the opportunity to comply therewith by handing over the suit property but willfully failed to do so. That demonstrates contempt and brazen disobedience of the order of the court a fact that compels the court, not for the win of the applicants or the personal gratification of the particular judicial officer who issued the orders but for the sake of the integrity of the court and the justice system at large. That remains the dictate because disobedience of court orders has the undesirable result of undermining the judicial function as the last bastion of protection of rights and guarantee of orderly public affairs. Failure to comply with court orders also damage public trust and reputation of the body politic which then disrupts public good including attraction of investments.
14. Because of the grievous consequences of disobedience of court orders and the need to safeguard public good, those who set on the path to willfully disobey court orders must expect and be met with commensurate repercussions
15. The court finds all the respondents in contempt of the terms of the judgment delivered on the 7.7.2025 as reiterated on 01.08.2025, convicts them for the same and directs that all shall attend court in person on the 18.12.2025 for purposes of showing court why they cannot be punished in accordance with the law.
Dated, signed and delivered Virtually, this day of October, 2025
Patrick J O Otieno
Judge
I the presence of:
Mr Gichui for the plaintiff/applicants
Mr Matunda for the 1 st defendant/respondent
Mr muyesu for the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondent
FOOTNOTES
[1] Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P. 285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT LODWAR
CIVIL SUIT NO. E008 OF 2023
ISAAC KABERIA...............................................................................................1ST PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
WILLIAM EKAI...................................................................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
LORE LOKITAUNG LOKORITADARA...................................................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
MEHADEG..........................................................................................................................4TH PLAINTIFF
DRILL FOR LIFE, NEHEMIAH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED......................................................5TH PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
MICHAEL PEIKAI EKWEE..........................................................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MOSES KIPLEL KISORIO, JOHNSTONE UTALY LIVECHI, CHRISTOPHER LOKENO SIOKAN (Sued on behalf of Christ is the Way Ministries) ...........................................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENTS
WILLIAM EMASE EKOUMA.....................................................................3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
1. By the Notice of Motion dated the 16.7.2025, the Applicants /decree-holders have prayed to the court in the main that the respondent/judgment debtors; MICHAEL PEIKAI EKWEE, MOSES KIPLEL KISORIO, JOHNSTONE UTALY LIVECHI, CHRISTOPHER LOKENO and WILLIAM EMASE EKOUMA be summoned before Honourable Court to show cause why they should not be committed to civil jail for blatantly failing to comply with the court orders issued by Honourable court on 7th July 2025. It is then prayed that on failing to show necessary cause, MICHAEL PEIKAI EKWEE, MOSES KIPLEL KISORIO, JOHNSTONE UTALY LIVECHI, CHRISTOPHER LOKENO SIOKAN and WILLIAM EMASE EKOUMA be condemned to pay a fine, be committed to civil jail for a maximum period of six (6) months or both, for contempt/disobedience of orders issued by Honourable court on 7th July 2025.
2. The application is premised on the grounds that; The Honorable Court pronounced itself with finality in its judgment dated 7 th July 2025, read in open Court in presence of the Plaintiffs, the 1 st Defendant and the Counsel for all the Defendants; the Plaintiffs have at all material times, since the outset of this dispute been keen to Honor the Orders of the Court, and with the pronouncements of the Court, it was the Plaintiff’s hope that the 1st Defendant would comply without much push and pull; the judgment of the Court has neither been acted upon nor honoured by the Respondents, despite Court Orders generally carrying a penal notice for non-compliance and notwithstanding the numerous correspondence shared by Counsel for the Applicant with the Respondent’s Counsel; the Plaintiffs have written to the Court with a view to obtaining a decree for purposes of execution albeit unsuccessfully yet the judgment obtained does not suffice for the Officer Commanding Station at Lodwar to supervise the enforcement as it is; it is trite law that the disobedience of a court order is fundamental to the administration of justice and the rule of law; for a party who obtains an order from the court to be certain that the order will be obeyed by those who it is
directed to and that the orders are not deemed mere suggestions and as such, once issued binds all and sundry, the mighty and the lowly equally without exception and lastly that unless the Respondents are compelled to comply, the Applicants are apprehensive that they have no another way to ensure compliance with the orders of the Court as there exists no other way of enforcing the said orders unless the orders sought herein are granted hence it is in the interest of justice that the orders sought herein be granted. Those facts were reiterated in the Affidavit of support.
3. When served with the Replying Affidavit, the applicant filed a Further Affidavit whose gist was that despite the court’s directions on a handover date, the respondent failed to attend, gave two different proposed dates but never attended as proposed hence no handover took place.
4. On the contention that no formal order with a penal notice was served upon the respondent, the applicants contend that the respondents were in court in person and by counsel and have additionally filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal and would not have done so had they not been aware of the judgment and its terms.
5. The application was opposed on the strength of the Replying Affidavit sworn by the 1 st defendant for himself. The gist of that affidavit is that there has not been the demonstration and satisfaction of the law that the terms of the order be served, Knowledge of the terms by the Respondent and failure by the Respondent to comply with the terms of the order be demonstrated by the applicant. The deponent however concedes to have been al the time aware of the judgment but maintains that he was never served with the order he is alleged to be in contempt of. He adds that the counsel has advised him that he cannot be in contempt before formal service. He then adds that he had set up plans to handover during the month of August, two things happened; he fell ill and was equally advised that the decree extracted was erroneous just as the judgment was not clear of who to hand over to. He asserts having brought to the attention of the applicants the contradictions in the judgment to the applicants with the hope that he would be indulged but the applicants instead chose to pursue the misconceived application. He maintains that the application is misconceived, ill-advised and a candidate for dismissal.
6. Both sides have filed submissions taking good time to address the law on contempt. While the applicants take the view that there is demonstrated willful disregard of the court order in the judgment, the respondents are of the view that the application is unmerited for failure to meet the requirements of applications of its nature.
7. The court has had the benefit of reading the material availed in line with the court records and discerns the only question for determination to be whether the thresholds for grant of orders of contempt have been met.
8. It is to court trite that every person, to whom an order of the court gives an obligation to meet the terms has the unqualified, unwavering and singular duty to comply with the same [1] . The duty is so imposing and mandatory that even when in doubt of how to comply, the exact expectation of the order or even as to what extent it is reasonable, the person obligated has the duty to approach the court for interpretation of what may be unclear or ambiguous to him.
9. The Supreme Court in this country has reiterated the duty and need to comply with court order, with finality of settling the law when, in Mate & another v Wambora & another [2017] KESC 1 (KLR) the court said:
“Be it restated that the court’s word is the people’s solemn edict calling for obedience; but it is precisely the sanctity of that word, that dictates utmost care, focus and assiduity, in the judge’s undertaking.”
10. In this matter, the dispute was about the control of what both sides call the Turkana mission and its assets. The court resolved that dispute and directed that the property remain under the control of the recognized leadership. In its words, the court said: -
The court respects the wishes of the two sides and declare that the parcel or piece of land at Narewa and the motor vehicle Registration number KBY 989G is the property of the ministry and shall be maintained and held as such by the Christ Dominion Church, on behalf of the recognised leadership of the ministry.
11. After the judgment was delivered, parties and counsel attended court on 01.08.2025 and after respective counsel addressed the court, the court directed the respondents to comply in the following terms:
“…being aware that the parties may still belong to the same faith and calling, the court directs as follows:
The 2 nd defendant and his codefendants shall proceed to the site of the premises and peacefully handover the keys and the property therein, including the ignition keys to motor vehicle Reg No. KBY989G, on the 4.8.2025 at 10am
If there shall be a default to comply, the plaintiff shall have the liberty to seek the assistance of the local OCS, to break open the premises and take possession.”
12. It is clear to court that if the respondents were ever in doubt of their obligations to the court order, the clarification was made in the presence of another counsel in the case. What to do and when to do it were all set out in the orders reproduced above. It is to court an outright disobedience when more than four months later no step has been taken by the judgment debtor to discharge the obligation.
13. Based on the materials availed and the record of the court, particularly the proceeding of 01.08.2025, the court find that the respondents were well aware of their obligation to the judgment, had all the opportunity to comply therewith by handing over the suit property but willfully failed to do so. That demonstrates contempt and brazen disobedience of the order of the court a fact that compels the court, not for the win of the applicants or the personal gratification of the particular judicial officer who issued the orders but for the sake of the integrity of the court and the justice system at large. That remains the dictate because disobedience of court orders has the undesirable result of undermining the judicial function as the last bastion of protection of rights and guarantee of orderly public affairs. Failure to comply with court orders also damage public trust and reputation of the body politic which then disrupts public good including attraction of investments.
14. Because of the grievous consequences of disobedience of court orders and the need to safeguard public good, those who set on the path to willfully disobey court orders must expect and be met with commensurate repercussions
15. The court finds all the respondents in contempt of the terms of the judgment delivered on the 7.7.2025 as reiterated on 01.08.2025, convicts them for the same and directs that all shall attend court in person on the 18.12.2025 for purposes of showing court why they cannot be punished in accordance with the law.
Dated, signed and delivered Virtually, this day of October, 2025
Patrick J O Otieno
Judge
I the presence of:
Mr Gichui for the plaintiff/applicants
Mr Matunda for the 1 st defendant/respondent
Mr muyesu for the 2 nd and 3 rd Respondent
FOOTNOTES
[1] Hadkinson v Hadkinson [1952] P. 285