'1. The application before this court for determination is the one dated 31.3.25 wherein the applicant seeks for orders:
1) That this Honourable Court be pleased to order the County Secretary and the County Chief Officer, Revenue Administration, Nairobi City County to appear and show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for failing to order the court order issued on 6th February 2025.
2) That the Respondents be committed to civil jail for a period of six months for disobeying the Order of the Honourable Court issued on 6th February 2025.
3) That Godfrey Akumali, the County Secretary and Wilson Njoroge Gakuya, the Chief Officer, Revenue Administration, Nairobi City County be committed to civil jail for contempt of court.
4) That the costs of this Application be borne by the Respondents.
2. The Application is supported by the grounds the Applicant herein is the registered proprietor of the suit properties being L.R. NO. 7785/74 situated in old Runda Estate, Nairobi and L.R. No. 209/7884 situated in Kyuna Estate, Nairobi.
3. It is the Applicants case that on 6th February 2025 this Honourable Court delivered judgment in this matter in favour of the Applicant and ordered the Respondents to issue a current rate demand for the years 2023 & 2024 without any interest or penalties thereto.
4. On 6th March 2025 a letter and the decree issued in this matter was served upon the Office of the County Secretary, Nairobi. It is argued that the Respondents have failed, refused and/or ignored to comply with the orders issued by this Court and they are in contempt of court and this Court should cite them for contempt of court.
5. According to the Applicabt,the land rates for this current year of 2025 are due and payable on or before 31st March 2025 however the Applicant is unable to pay the same due to the illegal and unlawful penalties and interest levied by the Respondents.
The Respondents’ Case;
6. The application is opposed through the 2nd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit who admits that the court delivered its Judgment on 6th February 2025 when it issued Orders inter alia:
i. Prohibiting the Respondents from levying penalties and interest on rates already paid by the Applicant;
ii. Prohibiting the Respondents from demanding payment of rates arrears or in any manner whatsoever denying the Applicant from paying annual rates in respect of LR. No. 7785/74 situate in Runda Estate Nairobi and L.R. No, 209/7884 Situate in Kyuna Nairobi;
iii. Quashing the Respondents decision to levy penalties and interest on rates which the Applicant has already paid or demanding payment of rates arrears or in any manner howsoever denying the Applicant from paying the annual rates in respect of his properties above mentioned;
iv. Of Mandamus compelling the Respondents to issue the Applicant with a current rate demand for the years 2023 and 2024 in respect to his properties above-mentioned without penalties and interest.
7. It is their case that they are not in contempt as they have not willfully disobeyed the referenced orders herein.
8. It is their case that the Revenue Directorate at the Nairobi City County took appropriate action to remove all previously levied penalties and interests in relation to the suit properties for the years 2023 and 2024.
9. According to the Respondent,The Directorate also issued to the Applicant current revised invoices exclusive of any penalties and interest for the years 2023 and 2024.
10. In further compliance with the court’s orders the Respondents argue that they updated its Statements to reflect all rates paid and outstanding balances for the Suit Properties herein.
11. The County''s Directorate levied against the Applicant, the applicable penalties and interests that have accrued for the year 2025 in line with the law as set out in the Memo dated 6h June 2025 and the current invoices issued.
Analysis and Determination;
12. The issue for determination is whether the application has merit.
13. In determining the application, the court is guided by the locus classicus case of Hadkinson –V- Hadkinson 91952) 2 All E.R.567, At Page 575 Lord Denning made the following observation:
“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of, whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void. Lord Cottenham, L.C., said in Chuck –vs- Cremer (1) (1 Coop. temp.Cott 342):
“A party, who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it… It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or valid- whether it was regular or irregular. That they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question. That the course of a party knowing of an order, which was null or irregular, and who might be affected by it, was plain. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as it exists it must not be disobeyed.
14. The applicant advanced an argument that the Respondents have not complied with the court orders.In response, the Respondent’s case is that it complied with all the court orders.
15. The court notes that save for referring to a Memo, the Respondent has not tendered any other documentary evidence that would satisfy the court that its orders have been complied with.
16. The Respondent is the custodian of all the documents and there is no reason why the Respondent opted not to furnish the court with evidence that would help the court. They are in the circumstances going to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court orders.
Determination:
17. The applicant has made out the case for the grant of the orders as issued below.
Order;
1) The County Secretary and the County Chief Officer, Revenue Administration, Nairobi City County are hereby ordered to appear and show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for failing to order the court order issued on 6th February 2025.
2) Prayers 2 and 3 will abide the outcome of order 1.
3) Costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 30th day of October, 2025.
'
1) That this Honourable Court be pleased to order the County Secretary and the County Chief Officer, Revenue Administration, Nairobi City County to appear and show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for failing to order the court order issued on 6th February 2025.
2) That the Respondents be committed to civil jail for a period of six months for disobeying the Order of the Honourable Court issued on 6th February 2025.
3) That Godfrey Akumali, the County Secretary and Wilson Njoroge Gakuya, the Chief Officer, Revenue Administration, Nairobi City County be committed to civil jail for contempt of court.
4) That the costs of this Application be borne by the Respondents.
2. The Application is supported by the grounds the Applicant herein is the registered proprietor of the suit properties being L.R. NO. 7785/74 situated in old Runda Estate, Nairobi and L.R. No. 209/7884 situated in Kyuna Estate, Nairobi.
3. It is the Applicants case that on 6th February 2025 this Honourable Court delivered judgment in this matter in favour of the Applicant and ordered the Respondents to issue a current rate demand for the years 2023 & 2024 without any interest or penalties thereto.
4. On 6th March 2025 a letter and the decree issued in this matter was served upon the Office of the County Secretary, Nairobi. It is argued that the Respondents have failed, refused and/or ignored to comply with the orders issued by this Court and they are in contempt of court and this Court should cite them for contempt of court.
5. According to the Applicabt,the land rates for this current year of 2025 are due and payable on or before 31st March 2025 however the Applicant is unable to pay the same due to the illegal and unlawful penalties and interest levied by the Respondents.
The Respondents’ Case;
6. The application is opposed through the 2nd Respondent’s Replying Affidavit who admits that the court delivered its Judgment on 6th February 2025 when it issued Orders inter alia:
i. Prohibiting the Respondents from levying penalties and interest on rates already paid by the Applicant;
ii. Prohibiting the Respondents from demanding payment of rates arrears or in any manner whatsoever denying the Applicant from paying annual rates in respect of LR. No. 7785/74 situate in Runda Estate Nairobi and L.R. No, 209/7884 Situate in Kyuna Nairobi;
iii. Quashing the Respondents decision to levy penalties and interest on rates which the Applicant has already paid or demanding payment of rates arrears or in any manner howsoever denying the Applicant from paying the annual rates in respect of his properties above mentioned;
iv. Of Mandamus compelling the Respondents to issue the Applicant with a current rate demand for the years 2023 and 2024 in respect to his properties above-mentioned without penalties and interest.
7. It is their case that they are not in contempt as they have not willfully disobeyed the referenced orders herein.
8. It is their case that the Revenue Directorate at the Nairobi City County took appropriate action to remove all previously levied penalties and interests in relation to the suit properties for the years 2023 and 2024.
9. According to the Respondent,The Directorate also issued to the Applicant current revised invoices exclusive of any penalties and interest for the years 2023 and 2024.
10. In further compliance with the court’s orders the Respondents argue that they updated its Statements to reflect all rates paid and outstanding balances for the Suit Properties herein.
11. The County''s Directorate levied against the Applicant, the applicable penalties and interests that have accrued for the year 2025 in line with the law as set out in the Memo dated 6h June 2025 and the current invoices issued.
Analysis and Determination;
12. The issue for determination is whether the application has merit.
13. In determining the application, the court is guided by the locus classicus case of Hadkinson –V- Hadkinson 91952) 2 All E.R.567, At Page 575 Lord Denning made the following observation:
“It is the plain and unqualified obligation of every person against, or in respect of, whom an order is made by a court of competent jurisdiction to obey it unless and until that order is discharged. The uncompromising nature of this obligation is shown by the fact that it extends even to cases where the person affected by an order believes it to be irregular or even void. Lord Cottenham, L.C., said in Chuck –vs- Cremer (1) (1 Coop. temp.Cott 342):
“A party, who knows of an order, whether null or valid, regular or irregular, cannot be permitted to disobey it… It would be most dangerous to hold that the suitors, or their solicitors, could themselves judge whether an order was null or valid- whether it was regular or irregular. That they should come to the court and not take upon themselves to determine such a question. That the course of a party knowing of an order, which was null or irregular, and who might be affected by it, was plain. He should apply to the court that it might be discharged. As long as it exists it must not be disobeyed.
14. The applicant advanced an argument that the Respondents have not complied with the court orders.In response, the Respondent’s case is that it complied with all the court orders.
15. The court notes that save for referring to a Memo, the Respondent has not tendered any other documentary evidence that would satisfy the court that its orders have been complied with.
16. The Respondent is the custodian of all the documents and there is no reason why the Respondent opted not to furnish the court with evidence that would help the court. They are in the circumstances going to show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court orders.
Determination:
17. The applicant has made out the case for the grant of the orders as issued below.
Order;
1) The County Secretary and the County Chief Officer, Revenue Administration, Nairobi City County are hereby ordered to appear and show cause why they should not be cited for contempt of court for failing to order the court order issued on 6th February 2025.
2) Prayers 2 and 3 will abide the outcome of order 1.
3) Costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 30th day of October, 2025.
'