Court Orders Former Nairobi Finance CECM Charles Kerich to Surrender for Three-Month Jail Term

The High Court in Kenya has ordered Charles Kerich, the former Nairobi County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Finance, to surrender for a three-month jail term for contempt of court. The ruling by Justice Francis Gikonyo stemmed from the Nairobi County Government's persistent failure to settle KSh 106.7 million in legal fees owed to Kwengu & Company Advocates, despite clear court directives. Kerich, in his capacity as the then-finance executive, was held personally responsible for the non-compliance. The court rejected his legal team's application to suspend the sentence, emphasizing the paramount importance of obeying judicial orders and underscoring the personal accountability of public officials in upholding the rule of law.

In a significant development for public accountability in Kenya, the High Court has issued a definitive order for Charles Kerich, the former Nairobi County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Finance, to commence a three-month custodial sentence for contempt of court. This directive, delivered by Justice Francis Gikonyo, underscores the judiciary's unwavering commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that court orders are not mere suggestions but binding directives that demand strict compliance.

The ruling sends a clear message that public officials, regardless of their position, are not immune to the consequences of defying judicial pronouncements. The case highlights the increasing judicial intolerance for such defiance, particularly when it pertains to the execution of financial obligations by state entities. This article delves into the background of the contempt proceedings, the legal framework governing contempt of court in Kenya, and the broader implications of this ruling for practising attorneys and public administration.

The contempt proceedings against Charles Kerich originated from the Nairobi County Government's protracted failure to settle a substantial sum of KSh 106.7 million in legal fees. This debt was owed to Kwengu & Company Advocates, arising from an earlier judgment in a case involving Foton East Africa Limited, where Nairobi County Government was directed to release funds. Despite court orders formalizing this obligation, including a Certificate of Order Against the Government, the payment remained outstanding, leading the aggrieved advocates to initiate contempt proceedings against Kerich, who, as the then-CECM for Finance, was responsible for overseeing the county's financial obligations and implementing court-ordered payments.

The legal framework for contempt of court in Kenya is primarily governed by the Contempt of Court Act, No. 46 of 2016. Prior to its enactment, the law on contempt largely relied on Section 5 of the Judicature Act (Cap 8 of the Laws of Kenya), which imported the English common law on contempt. The 2016 Act was introduced to provide a clear statutory basis, defining both civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt, relevant in this case, is defined as the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, or other process of a court or willful breach of an undertaking given to a court. The objectives of the Act include upholding the dignity and authority of the court, ensuring compliance with judicial directions, and preserving an effective and impartial system of justice. The Act prescribes a punishment for contempt of court, which can include a fine not exceeding KES 200,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both.

Justice Francis Gikonyo, sitting at the Milimani High Court, affirmed the three-month custodial sentence against Charles Kerich, directing him to surrender to Industrial Area Remand Prison. The court explicitly declined Kerich's application to suspend the sentence, emphasizing that court orders are peremptory and binding, not subject to negotiation or selective compliance. The judge warned that failure to surrender would result in his immediate arrest and treatment as a fugitive from justice.

Kerich's legal team advanced several arguments in his defense, including assertions that he had complied with court processes, had not attempted to evade justice, and remained available for court proceedings. They further contended that he was no longer the substantive County Executive Committee Member for Finance as of June 5, 2026, having been suspended by Governor Johnson Sakaja, and that an application to purge the contempt findings had been lodged. However, the court found these arguments insufficient to warrant a suspension of the sentence, ruling that any new applications would only be considered after they had been procedurally validated.

This case strongly reinforces the principle of personal accountability for public officials. Justice Gikonyo underscored that obedience to court orders is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law, and public officials are equally bound to comply with judicial directives. The court found that Kerich, in his capacity, had a direct responsibility to ensure compliance with the county's financial obligations arising from lawful court decisions, and his failure constituted the basis for the contempt conviction. This aligns with a growing trend in Kenyan jurisprudence where public officers are held personally liable for contempt, moving beyond the traditional shield of the corporate veil of government entities. Previous instances have seen top government officials fined for similar defiance, highlighting the judiciary's resolve to assert its authority.

While the Government Proceedings Act, Section 21, outlines specific procedures for execution against government entities, such as obtaining a Certificate of Order against Government, these provisions do not insulate individual public officials from personal liability for willful disobedience of court orders. The court's decision in Kerich's case serves as a potent reminder that the responsibility to implement judicial directives ultimately rests with the individuals in charge, and their failure to act can lead to severe personal sanctions, including imprisonment without the option of a fine.

The High Court's order for Charles Kerich to serve a three-month jail term for contempt of court is a critical affirmation of judicial authority and the rule of law in Kenya. It sends an unequivocal message to all public officials that willful disobedience of court orders carries serious personal consequences, including custodial sentences, and that the dignity of the courts must be respected at all times.

For legal practitioners, this case underscores the imperative of advising public sector clients on the heightened risks of personal liability for contempt. It highlights the need for proactive measures to ensure compliance with court orders, or to pursue appropriate legal avenues such as appeals or applications for stay, rather than outright defiance. The ongoing applications by Kerich's legal team, scheduled for July 29, 2026, will be closely watched, as they may further shape the jurisprudence on contempt against public officials and the enforcement mechanisms available to aggrieved parties against state organs in Kenya.