The Lower Eastern Times Opening The Third Eye
Related Articles
The High Court has rejected an attempt to hold President William Ruto and other state officials in contempt over the appointment of IEBC members.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel
A bench of three judges — Justices Roselyne Aburili, John Chigiti, and Bahati Mwamuye — ruled on Tuesday that before anyone can face contempt charges, they must first be given a fair hearing.
The petitioners had accused President Ruto of violating an order issued by Justice Lawrence Mugambi, which temporarily blocked the gazettement of IEBC appointees, including the chairperson nominee.
However, the judges insisted that those accused of ignoring court orders cannot be condemned without due process.
“The matter is serious and cannot be decided through oral arguments, especially when the accused individuals are not party to the case and have not been given an opportunity to respond,” the judges stated.
On Monday, senior counsel Paul Muite, representing the petitioners, argued that defiance of court orders deserves sanctions, including possible fines.
Supporting Muite, lawyer Otieno contended that knowledge of a court order is enough to establish contempt, regardless of whether the order has been formally served.
“Once a party is aware of a court order, service becomes secondary. A person in contempt loses the right to be heard until they comply,” Otieno argued.
He referred to a supplementary affidavit filed on June 20, reinforcing the position that those defying court orders should not be entertained in court.
But lawyers for the respondents rejected the contempt claims.
Counsel Mbita, representing the first respondent, argued that they had not received any formal contempt application or affidavit, making it impossible to respond to claims raised verbally in court.
“This application lacks merit and a legal basis. It violates the right to a fair hearing by introducing new issues after submissions have closed,” he said, accusing the petitioners of ambushing the court with fresh arguments.
Lawyer Kipkogei, for the second respondent, also dismissed the contempt claims, terming them procedurally flawed.
He stressed that contempt proceedings are personal and must identify the individuals involved, supported by clear evidence — which, in this case, had not been provided.
“You cannot request a contempt ruling without properly naming those accused. The court has not been properly moved according to the law,” Kipkogei argued.
He urged the court to dismiss the oral application and proceed with hearing the main petition.
