Former Interior CS Fred Matiang'i and lawyer-politician Miguna Miguna collage/HANDOUTThe Court of Appeal in Nairobi has overturned a 2018 High Court decision that had found former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i, then-Immigration Principal Secretary Gordon Kihalangwa, and ex-Inspector-General of Police Joseph Boinnet personally in contempt of court.
The High Court had ordered each of them to pay a KSh200,000 fine over the dramatic deportation saga of lawyer-politician Miguna Miguna.
But in a judgment delivered on September 19, 2025, Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Lydia Achode, and Joel Ngugi stressed that while courts must guard their authority, contempt is quasi-criminal in nature and public officials cannot be penalised without due process.
"The High Court’s rulings and orders of 28th and 29th March, 2018 are set aside only to the extent that they (i) convicted the appellants of contempt of court; (ii) issued a declaration that the appellants breached Article 10 by disobeying court orders; and (iii) imposed the personal fines of Sh200,000 on each appellant," the court documents state.
The case stemmed from events at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport in March 2018 when Miguna, attempted to return to the country after being deported the previous month.
Despite subsisting court orders directing the state to facilitate his re-entry and return his travel documents, armed officers held him at Terminal 2, seized his passport, and tried to place him on an outbound flight.
High Court judge George Odunga, acting on an urgent application, ordered his production in court and later declared the three senior officials in violation of Article 10 of the Constitution for flouting court orders, slapping them with personal fines deducted from their salaries.
On appeal, lawyers for the three argued that Justice Odunga had proceeded on an oral application from the bar, invoked inherent jurisdiction instead of following the then-extant Contempt of Court Act, and issued substantive penal orders during a mention without serving them with a formal charge or allowing mitigation.
On appeal, lawyers for the three argued that Justice Odunga had proceeded on an oral application from the bar and invoked inherent jurisdiction instead of following the then-extant Contempt of Court Act.
Miguna’s counsel countered that the High Court was entitled to act summarily to protect its authority and ensure his release, and that the officials had been served with the orders through multiple channels, including postings at JKIA and official social media handles.
Re-evaluating the record, the appellate judges affirmed that the High Court had inherent and supervisory power to require the production of a litigant, restrict the audience to non-compliant parties, and stay matters over to enforce its directions.
However, they held that the imposition of fines and the declaration of a constitutional breach amounted to penal sanctions that could not stand without a properly instituted contempt application supported by affidavit, served personally on the alleged contemnors and heard in accordance with law.
The bench underlined that its ruling did not condone disobedience of court orders but was confined to the procedural flaws in how the contempt finding was reached.
"Our holding is narrow: that the imposition of penal and declaratory sanctions for contempt on 28th – 29th March, 2018, could not, on the procedure employed, be sustained without a formal motion and due process safeguards," the appellate judges observed.
In the circumstances, the Court of Appeal set aside the contempt conviction, Article 10 declaration, and fines but made no order on costs.
