Health Cabinet Secretary Aden Duale has secured relief after the High Court declined bids to impose a jail term in the contempt proceedings over the disputed Ebola quarantine facility in Nanyuki.
Instead, the court discharged him and issued a warning against future non-compliance with court orders.
Delivering the ruling on Tuesday, High Court Judge Patricia Nyaundi said Duale’s prompt compliance with the court’s summons and personal appearance during mitigation demonstrated submission to judicial authority and weighed in his favour during sentencing.
“I have noted that Mr Duale has indeed submitted himself to the authorities of this court. He has, as was required of him, tendered his mitigation and I note he has rendered an apology,” the judge observed.
“Since this is the first instance, the minister is responding to this, I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he is actually disobeying the court. For that reason, I will accept the apology that has been sent, especially as he has been categorical that he recognises the authority of the court.”
Judge Nyaundi observed that the Cabinet Secretary’s conduct after the ruling reflected recognition of the authority of the court and willingness to subject himself to judicial processes.
However, the judge warned that the decision should not be interpreted as tolerance for disobedience of court orders and cautioned the Cabinet Secretary against any future acts that could amount to contempt.
The ruling followed mitigation proceedings arising from the court’s earlier finding that activities linked to the US-funded Ebola isolation and quarantine facility in Laikipia County continued despite conservatory orders suspending implementation of the project.
During sentencing submissions, lawyers representing the petitioners, Katiba Institute and Law Society of Kenya, had urged the court to impose the maximum available civil jail term.
Counsel Malidzo Nyawa, appearing for Katiba Institute, argued that the matter was not merely about an individual state officer but about protecting the authority of the judiciary and preserving the rule of law.
The petitioners maintained that the court’s contempt jurisdiction exists to ensure orders are obeyed and to prevent situations where judicial decisions are ignored without consequence.
“In considering the sentence, I ask the court to consider the factors. The power to punish for contempt is meant to protect the rule of law,” counsel submitted.
They urged the court to consider deterrence, institutional integrity, and public confidence in the justice system in determining the sentence.
The petitioners had specifically asked the court to impose a custodial sentence of 15 months, arguing that contempt by senior public officials should attract meaningful sanctions to reinforce constitutional order.
Duale, in mitigation, maintained that the Ministry of Health acted on scientific and technical advice and that there had been no intention to undermine the court’s authority.
“At all material times, it was never the intention of the Ministry or me as the Cabinet Secretary to disregard, undermine, or act in defiance of the orders of this Honourable Court,” he submitted.
He also informed the court that any activities connected to the project had since ceased.
In declining to impose imprisonment, the court ultimately found that Duale’s immediate appearance before court and engagement with the judicial process justified a more lenient outcome.