Former Interior Cabinet Secretary Fred Matiang’i has scored a win over controversial lawyer Miguna Miguna in his deportation case after the Court of Appeal overturned a contempt verdict against him.
In a ruling delivered on Friday, September 19, the court overturned the verdict issued against Matiang’i alongside former Inspector General of Police Joseph Boinnet, and former Immigration Chief Gordon Kihalangwa, and also cancelled the Ksh200,000 fine imposed on the trio.
The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had imposed the conviction and fine without the formal institution of a contempt application.
The three had initially been found guilty of contempt of court by Justice George Odunga in 2018 for failing to adhere to a court order to release Miguna from detention at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport (JKIA) and produce him before the court.
The case arose from events witnessed in March 2018, after Miguna attempted to return to the country despite having been deported the previous month.
Miguna argued that despite having the necessary travel documents and court orders directing the State to facilitate his return to the country, 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.
However, this is where the bone of contention arose, as counsel 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.
In response, Miguna’s lawyers argued 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.
In the ruling, 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.
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.
