Report to prison: Court upholds Kerich jail term

The High Court of Kenya at Milimani has upheld a three-month custodial sentence against Charles Kerich, the suspended Nairobi County Finance Executive, for contempt of court. Justice Francis Gikonyo dismissed Kerich's application seeking to suspend the jail term, ordering him to immediately surrender to prison. The contempt arose 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. This decision underscores the judiciary's firm resolve to enforce its orders and hold public officials accountable, reinforcing the sanctity of court processes and the rule of law in Kenya.

In a significant development for judicial enforcement and public accountability in Kenya, the High Court at Milimani has ordered the immediate committal of Charles Kerich, the suspended Nairobi County Finance Executive, to prison. The ruling, delivered by Justice Francis Gikonyo on July 7, 2026, declined Kerich's application to suspend a three-month jail term imposed for contempt of court. This decision sends a clear and unequivocal message regarding the imperative of complying with judicial directives, particularly for public officials.

The High Court's stance reinforces the principle that no individual, irrespective of their public office, is above the law or immune to the consequences of defying court orders. The case stems from the Nairobi County Government's protracted failure to settle substantial legal fees, leading to contempt proceedings against Kerich in his capacity as the officer responsible for the county's finances.

This article will delve into the background of the contempt proceedings, the legal framework governing contempt of court in Kenya, and the High Court's reasoning for upholding the custodial sentence. It will further explore the implications of this ruling for legal practitioners and public officials, highlighting the judiciary's unwavering commitment to upholding its authority and ensuring the effective administration of justice.

The legal dispute leading to Charles Kerich's conviction for contempt originated from the Nairobi County Government's failure to pay KSh 106.7 million in legal fees to Kwengu & Company Advocates. This debt was a consequence of an earlier court decree of KSh 142 million awarded to Foton East Africa Limited, which the county government was directed to release. Despite court orders issued in November 2024 formalizing the obligation to pay, compliance was not achieved.

Consequently, Kwengu & Company Advocates initiated contempt proceedings against Kerich, who, as the County Executive Committee Member for Finance, was deemed responsible for overseeing the county's financial obligations and implementing court-ordered payments. On May 19, 2026, the High Court found Kerich guilty of contempt, determining that the county had failed to honour the court's directive despite having sufficient notice. He was subsequently sentenced to three months imprisonment without the option of a fine.

The law relating to contempt of court in Kenya is primarily governed by the Contempt of Court Act, No. 46 of 2016. This Act defines civil contempt as the willful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, or other process of a court. It prescribes penalties including a fine not exceeding KSh 200,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or both. However, it is crucial to note that the entire Contempt of Court Act, 2016, was declared invalid by the High Court in *Kenya Human Rights Commission v Attorney General & Another* [2019] eKLR, due to a lack of public participation in its enactment. Despite this invalidation, courts continue to rely on their inherent powers to punish for contempt and often refer to the principles and definitions enshrined in the Act, as it codified existing common law principles.

Justice Francis Gikonyo's ruling on July 7, 2026, to decline the suspension of Charles Kerich's three-month jail term for contempt, firmly reiterated the judiciary's commitment to the rule of law. Kerich had sought temporary orders to halt his imprisonment, arguing, among other things, that an unexpected power outage had interrupted his internet connection during the virtual court session when the sentencing ruling was delivered, preventing his full participation. However, the High Court was not persuaded by these arguments, maintaining that the contempt proceedings and the resulting sentence should stand.

The court emphasized that obedience to court orders is a fundamental principle of the rule of law and that public officials are equally bound to comply with judicial directives. Justice Gikonyo explicitly stated, “I decline to set aside or suspend the sentence imposed by this court,” directing Kerich to surrender immediately. This decision aligns with the objectives of the Contempt of Court Act, 2016, which, despite its invalidation on procedural grounds, aimed to uphold the dignity and authority of the court and ensure the observance and respect of due process.

In considering applications for a stay of execution, Kenyan courts typically evaluate whether substantial loss may result without a stay, if the application was made without unreasonable delay, and if security for the performance of the decree has been provided. In contempt cases, however, the paramount consideration often shifts to the integrity and authority of the court itself. The High Court's refusal to suspend the sentence, even with pending applications to purge the contempt, signals that the need to uphold judicial authority outweighs the personal inconvenience or arguments for delay, particularly when the contemnor is a public official.

This ruling serves as a potent reminder to public officials that their positions do not grant them immunity from judicial directives. The judiciary has consistently demonstrated its willingness to impose custodial sentences for contempt, especially when there is a deliberate and persistent disregard for court orders. Cases involving public officers who defy court orders have historically been a point of contention, but this decision reinforces the principle that accountability extends to all levels of government, ensuring that the administration of justice is not undermined by official recalcitrance.

The High Court's decision to uphold Charles Kerich's three-month jail term for contempt of court marks a critical moment in Kenya's legal landscape, reaffirming the judiciary's resolve to enforce its authority and ensure compliance with its orders. For legal practitioners, this ruling underscores the heightened risk associated with advising public officials or entities to disregard judicial directives. It is now more critical than ever to impress upon clients, particularly those in public service, the absolute necessity of adhering to court orders to avoid severe personal and institutional repercussions, including custodial sentences without the option of a fine.

Practitioners should anticipate a more stringent application of contempt laws, with courts demonstrating less tolerance for dilatory tactics or arguments seeking to circumvent compliance. This case sets a strong precedent that the integrity of the judicial process will be vigorously protected. Moving forward, legal professionals must meticulously guide their clients through the complexities of court compliance, emphasizing proactive measures to satisfy decrees and orders. The Kerich decision serves as a powerful reminder that the rule of law is paramount, and its enforcement will be pursued with unwavering determination, irrespective of the contemnor's status or position.