Senior gov't officers cited for contempt in Riruta–Ngong rail project dispute

The application, filed by Naomi Misati, accuses the officials of willful and deliberate disobedience of interim conservatory orders issued by the High Court on January 20, 2026.

The orders barred the respondents from proceeding with the construction, financing or implementation of the rail project pending the hearing of an earlier application.

Those cited in the contempt proceedings include Kenya Railways Managing Director Philip Mainga, Secretary to the Cabinet Mercy Wanjau, National Treasury Principal Secretary Chris Kiptoo, Transport Principal Secretary Mohamed Daghar, Attorney General Dorcas Oduor, National Assembly Clerk Samuel Njoroge, China Road and Bridge Corporation General Manager Xiaodong Yu, and a director of one of the corporate respondents.

In the application, the petitioner is seeking urgent certification of the matter and orders compelling the named officials to personally appear before court to show cause why they should not be cited and punished for contempt. 

The court is also being asked to issue warrants of arrest and commit the officials to civil jail for up to six months should they fail to attend court or continue defying the orders.

According to court documents, the conservatory orders issued on January 20 expressly restrained the respondents from continuing construction works on the Riruta–Ngong rail line, including activities within the Ngong Forest area and along the Lenana Exchange corridor. 

The court also prohibited the allocation or disbursement of funds from the Railway Development Fund or the Consolidated Fund for the project without parliamentary budgetary approval.

The petitioner argues that the orders were issued in the presence of advocates representing all key respondents and were subsequently extracted and served both electronically and physically on January 20 and 21, 2026. 

The court papers state that all parties acknowledged receipt and were fully aware of the scope and binding nature of the orders.

“Despite this, the construction works resumed on January 22, 2026, and continued on subsequent days, including January 24 and 25, in blatant defiance of the court’s directives,” the petitioner claims.

The application further states that a cease-and-desist letter issued by the petitioner’s advocates on January 23, warning the respondents of their ongoing breach of the court orders, was ignored.

The petitioner argues that the continued construction is rapidly altering the status quo on the ground and risks rendering both the main petition and the pending application nugatory. 

They warn that unless the court intervenes urgently, the project could reach a stage of substantial completion, leaving the court with no effective remedy even if it later finds in favour of the petitioners.

In the filings, the respondents’ conduct is described as “deliberate, contumelious and high-handed,” with the petitioner arguing that the actions undermine the authority and dignity of the court and threaten the rule of law.

Through lawyer Charles Kanjama, the petitioner maintains that court orders are peremptory and binding, and that disobedience amounts to a direct challenge to the sovereignty of the legal system.

The court has directed the applicant to serve the application on all respondents and appear for mention on February 9, 2026.