The Court of Appeal in Nairobi has overturned a 2018 High Court ruling that found former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i, ex-Immigration Principal Secretary Gordon Kihalangwa, and former Inspector-General of Police Joseph Boinnet in contempt of court over the deportation saga of lawyer-politician Miguna Miguna.
The earlier ruling had imposed Sh200,000 fines on each official, sparking national debate on accountability and the limits of court authority over public officers.
In a judgment delivered on September 19, 2025, Justices Wanjiru Karanja, Lydia Achode, and Joel Ngugi stressed that contempt is quasi-criminal in nature and public officials cannot face penalties without proper legal procedures.
"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 stated.
The case originated in March 2018 when Miguna attempted to return to Kenya after being deported the previous month.
Despite standing court orders directing the state to allow his re-entry and return his travel documents, armed officers detained him at Jomo Kenyatta International Airport Terminal 2, seized his passport, and attempted to place him on an outbound flight.
High Court judge George Odunga, responding to an urgent application, ordered Miguna to be brought to court and declared the three senior officials in breach of Article 10 of the Constitution, imposing personal fines deducted from their salaries.
On appeal, the officials’ lawyers argued that Justice Odunga acted on an oral application and invoked inherent jurisdiction instead of following the Contempt of Court Act, issuing substantive penal orders without serving formal charges or allowing for mitigation.
Miguna’s lawyers countered that the High Court was entitled to act swiftly to uphold its authority and ensure his release, noting that the orders were communicated through multiple channels, including postings at JKIA and official social media platforms.
After reviewing the proceedings, the appellate judges acknowledged the High Court’s power to enforce compliance but ruled that the fines and constitutional declaration were improperly imposed.
"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 judgment noted.
The Court of Appeal therefore quashed the contempt convictions, the Article 10 declaration, and the fines, but did not make any order on costs. The ruling emphasized that it does not condone disobedience of court orders, but addresses procedural flaws in the earlier contempt finding.
